alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 92 (Thursday, May 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30396-30397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11778]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-176-019]


Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Proposed 
Change in FERC Gas Tariff

May 5, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 2, 2000, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of 
America (Natural) tendered for filing to be a part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, Original Sheet No. 26K, to be 
effective May 1, 2000.
    Natural states that the purpose of this filing is to implement a 
negotiated rate transaction with Central Illinois Light Company (CILCO) 
under Rate Schedule FTS pursuant to Section 49 of the General Terms and 
Conditions of Natural's Tariff.
    Natural further states that this transaction is being filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ruling that a transportation rate 
inclusive of surcharges would be considered a negotiated rate 
transaction.
    Natural requests waiver of section 49.1(e) of the General Terms and 
Conditions of its Tariff and of the Commission's Regulations, including 
the 30-day notice requirement of section 154.207, to the extent 
necessary to permit Original Sheet No. 26K to become effective May 1, 
2000.
    Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its 
customers, interested state commissions and all parties set out on the 
Commission's official service list in Docket No. RP99-176.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion

[[Page 30397]]

to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance 
with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance 
with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This 
filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-11778 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMES E. KARR,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 356 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of May, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
# C_2021452EN.01004601.xml

| 8.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/46

---

Action brought on 20 September 2021 — bett1.de v EUIPO — XXXLutz Marken (Body-Star)

(Case T-599/21)

(2021/C 452/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: bett1.de GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Brexl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: XXXLutz Marken GmbH (Wels, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Body-Star — EU trade mark No 17 711 748

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2021 in Case R 1712/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
§ 382.153 What actions do CROs take on complaints? When a complaint is made directly to a CRO for a carrier providing service using aircraft with 19 or more passenger seats, the CRO must promptly take dispositive action as follows: ( a ) If the complaint is made to a CRO before the action or proposed action of carrier personnel has resulted in a violation of a provision of this part, the CRO must take, or direct other carrier personnel to take, whatever action is necessary to ensure compliance with this part.
( b ) If an alleged violation of a provision of this part has already occurred, and the CRO agrees that a violation has occurred, the CRO must provide to the complainant a written statement setting forth a summary of the facts and what steps, if any, the carrier proposes to take in response to the violation.
( c ) If the CRO determines that the carrier's action does not violate a provision of this part, the CRO must provide to the complainant a written statement including a summary of the facts and the reasons, under this part, for the determination.
( d ) The statements required to be provided under this section must inform the complainant of his or her right to pursue DOT enforcement action under this part. The CRO must provide the statement in person to the complainant at the airport if possible; otherwise, it must be forwarded to the complainant within 30 calendar days of the complaint.
[Doc. No. DOT-OST-2004-19482, 73 FR 27665, May 13, 2008, as amended at 75 FR 44887, July 30, 2010]
§ 152.115 Grant agreement: Offer, acceptance, and amendment. ( a ) *Offer.* Upon approving a project for airport development, airport master planning, or airport system planning, the Administrator issues a written offer that sets forth the terms, limitations, and requirements of the proposed agreement.
( b ) *Acceptance.* The acceptance of an offer or an amendment to a grant agreement must be in writing. The sponsor's or planning agency's attorney must certify that the acceptance complies with all applicable law, and constitutes a legal and binding obligation of the sponsor or planning agency.
( c ) *Amendment: Airport development grants.* The maximum obligation of the United States under a grant agreement for an airport development project may be increased by an amendment if— ( 1 ) Except as otherwise provided by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, the maximum obligation of the United States is not increased by more than 10 percent;
( 2 ) Funds are available for the increase;
( 3 ) The sponsor shows that the increase is justified; and
( 4 ) The change does not prejudice the interest of the United States.
( d ) *Reduction of U.S. Share: Airport development grants.* When project work for which costs have been incurred is deleted from a grant agreement, the Administrator reduces the maximum obligation of the United States proportionately, based on the cost or value of the deleted work as shown on the project application.
( e ) *Amendment: Airport planning.* A grant agreement for airport planning may be changed if— ( 1 ) The change does not increase the maximum obligation of the United States under the grant agreement; and
( 2 ) The change does not prejudice the interest of the United States.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of aQuantive, Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Form 10-******Q***”), I, Brian P. McAndrews, the Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(1) The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 

 

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. 

 

Dated: August 12,2003
#### STARKEY v. CITY OF ANNISTON.

(Decided January 11, 1916.)

Appeal from Calhoun Circuit Court. •

Heard before Hon. Hugh D. Merrill.

Merrill & Walker, for appellant. S. W. Tate, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Affirmed by agreement.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-90,752-01

EX PARTE JOHNNY EARL ALEXANDER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR11-295A IN THE 235TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM COOKE COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Applicant was convicted ofinjury to a child causing serious bodily injury and sentenced to life

imprisonment. The EighthCourt ofAppeals affirmed his conviction. Alexander v. State, No. 08-14-

00113-CR (Tex. App.—El Paso, August 17, 2016). Applicant filed this application for a writ of

habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. SeeTEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contendsthat appellate counselwasineffective because counselfailed to notify him

when his direct appeal was affirmed and did not timely inform him of hisright to file a pro se petition

for discretionary review. Based on the record, the trial court has determined that Applicant, through

no fault of his own, was denied timely notice of the Court of Appeals’ affirmance and of the right to
2

file a pro se petition for discretionary review.

Relief is granted. Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Ex parte Miller, 330 S.W.3d 610

(Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Applicant may file an out-of-time PDR ofthe judgment of the Eighth Court

of Appeals in case number 08-14-00113-CR that affirmed his conviction in cause number CR11-

00295 from the 235th District Court of Cooke County. Applicant shall file his petition for

discretionary review with this Court within 30 days of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: December 9, 2020

Do not publish
S. 4075 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

An Act 

To amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to provide 

for the release of certain Federal interests in connection with certain grants 

under that Act, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reinvigorating Lending for the 

Future Act’’ or the ‘‘RLF Act’’. 

SEC. 2. RELEASE OF CERTAIN INTERESTS. 

Section 601(d)(2) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3211(d)(2)) is amended— 

(1) by striking the paragraph designation and heading and 

all that follows through ‘‘The Secretary may’’ and inserting 

the following: 

‘‘(2) RELEASE.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph 

(B), the Secretary may’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(B) CERTAIN RELEASES.— 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—On written request from a 

recipient of a grant under section 209(d), the Secretary 

shall release, in accordance with this subparagraph, 

any Federal interest in connection with the grant, if— 

‘‘(I) the request is made not less than 7 years 

after the final disbursement of the original grant; 

‘‘(II) the recipient has complied with the terms 

and conditions of the grant to the satisfaction of 

the Secretary; 

‘‘(III) any proceeds realized from the grant 

will be used for 1 or more activities that continue 

to carry out the economic development purposes 

of this Act; and 

‘‘(IV) the recipient includes in the written 

request a description of how the recipient will 

use the proceeds of the grant in accordance with 

subclause (III). 

‘‘(ii) DEADLINE.— 

‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subclause (II), the Secretary shall complete all closeout 

actions for the grant by not later than 180 days 

after receipt and acceptance of the written request 

under clause (i). 
S. 4075—2 

‘‘(II) EXTENSION.—The Secretary may extend 

a deadline under subclause (I) by an additional 

180 days if the Secretary determines the extension 

to be necessary. 

‘‘(iii) SAVINGS PROVISION.—Section 602 shall continue to apply to a project assisted with a grant under 

section 209(d) regardless of whether the Secretary 

releases a Federal interest under clause (i).’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4506 

To ensure coverage of pre-existing conditions under private health insurance, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 6, 2020 

Mr. GARDNER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To ensure coverage of pre-existing conditions under private 

health insurance, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pre-Existing Condi5 tions Protection Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PRE-EXISTING CONDITION PROTECTIONS. 

7 A group health plan and a health insurance issuer 

8 offering group or individual health insurance coverage 

9 may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion with 

10 respect to such plan or coverage, factor health status into 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4506 IS

1 premiums or charges, exclude benefits relating to pre-ex2 isting conditions from coverage, or otherwise exclude bene3 fits, set limits, or increase charges based on any pre-exist4 ing condition or health status. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1543

In re: TRAVIS DENORRIS ARNOLD,

 Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

(Nos. 1:08-cr-00322-TDS-1; 1:16-cv-00725-TDS-JEP)

Submitted: September 28, 2017 Decided: October 2, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis Denorris Arnold, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Travis Denorris Arnold petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district 

court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an 

order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s 

docket reveals that the district court dismissed the motion on June 23, 2017. 

Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Arnold’s case, we deny the 

mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We deny 

Arnold’s motion to suspend appellate proceedings. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
November 3, 2011

EPA’s Questions for Reverse Distributors

General Questions about the Returns Process

1. Who initiates the return? Does the RD alert the healthcare facility that credit is available for 

certain pharmaceuticals or do health care facilities periodically go through inventory to return 

un-needed items?

2. Does the RD have reps that go to healthcare facilities to pull and prepare pharmaceuticals for 

shipment to the RD? If so, does the rep know which items will/will not receive credit?

3. Is credit received per container? Per pill if container has been opened?

4. Do healthcare facilities return pharmaceuticals from the patient floors (e.g., drugs that have 

been re-packaged)? Are re-packaged pharmaceuticals creditable?

5. Once the shipment arrives at the RD facility, what is the timeframe for processing? 

6. Are generic brands creditable?

7. Do expired items typically get credit?

8. How is the RD paid for its services? Does the RD receive a percentage of the credit? Is there a 

flat fee? Are there additional charges to the healthcare facility for waste management?

9. Under what circumstances would a healthcare facility return pharmaceuticals to a (forward) 

distributor in lieu of sending to a RD? Do you process pharmaceuticals from (forward) 

distributors?

10. When pharmaceuticals are received at the RD, are they ever shipped to another RD’s facility for 

crediting? 

11. Do you accept non-pharmaceutical products?

12. How long are pharmaceuticals kept on-site after providing credit? How long are the 

pharmaceuticals that become hazardous wastes kept on-site? On average how long does it take 

a pharmaceutical to cycle through your facility?

Shipment 

1. Are returned pharmaceuticals shipped to the RD via commercial mail carrier or USPS or private 

hauler? Is the shipment tracked and is the healthcare facility notified by the RD that the 

shipment has been received? Do healthcare facilities notify the RD that a shipment has been 

sent? 

2. Does the board of pharmacy require RDs to keep an inventory of everything received at an RD? 

3. Are controlled substances shipped separately from other pharmaceuticals? Can you explain 

more about the process of handling returned controlled substances?

4. Have there been incidences where shipments have been lost or stolen?
November 3, 2011

Waste Determination and Management

1. What percentage of returned pharmaceuticals is typically RCRA hazardous waste once it is 

determined credit will or will not be given? Typically, do pharmaceuticals that meet RCRA’s

definition of a hazardous waste get credit? Do you ever manage non-hazardous 

pharmaceuticals as RCRA hazardous waste?

2. Is the manufacturer always contacted prior to disposal of a creditable pharmaceutical? For a 

non-creditable pharmaceutical?

3. What percentage of returned pharmaceuticals is sent back to the manufacturer versus being 

disposed of directly by the RD?
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 Date: November 14, 2008
    By:
    /s/  Daniel WallaceDaniel WallacePresident (Principal Executive Officer)Date: November 14, 2008
    By:
    /s/  Thomas OSullivanThomas OSullivanChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer) 22
#### § 435.61 General.

Unless otherwise indicated in this subpart, environmental review requirements contained in part 431 subpart F, applicable to a license to reenter an RLV shall apply to an application for a reentry license under this part.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANNA SCHMIDT , Appellant,

v.

STEPHEN SCHMIDT , Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 0

- 1498

[ June 23, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fif teenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Scott Suskauer , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2016

- DR

001222

- XXXX

- NB

.
Ralph T. White of The Law Office of RT White, Palm Beach Gardens, for appellant.

Jean M. Henne of Jean M. Henne, P.A., Winter Haven, for appellee

.

D AMOORGIAN , J

.
Anna Schmidt (“Former Wife”) appeals the trial court’s order s denying her Urgent Motion to Suspend Timesharing and granting Stephen Schmidt’s (“Former Husband”) Motion for Contempt and Enforcement of Final Judgment and Parenting Plan. On appeal, Former Wife argues the trial co urt erred in (1) denying her motion to suspend Former Husband’s timesharing ; (2) finding her in contempt of the parenting plan ; (3) denying her request for attorney’s fees and costs ; and (4) finding Former Husband was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs

. W e affirm on the first three issues without further comment. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the issue regarding Former Husband’s entitlement to attorney ’ s fees as not yet ripe.

A lthough the trial court found that Former Husband was entitled to attorney’s fees in connection with the motion for contempt , it did not award
an amount . An order merely findin g entitlement to attorney’ s fees is a

non

- final, non

- appealable order. See

, e.g. , Revier v. Revier , 45 So. 3d 570, 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“We dismiss [the] aspect of the final judgment as it relates to the award of attorney ’ s fees since the trial court determined2 only entitlement and reserved the determination of amount for a future day.”) ; Winkelman v. Toll , 632 So. 2d 130, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (“[O]rders granting attorney ’ s fees without determining amount are not ripe for appellate review.”); Wolf v. Wolf , 296 So. 3d 479, 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (“An order that determines entitlement to attorney’s fees without a determination of the amount is a nonappealable, nonfinal order.”)

. Accordingly, we dismiss without prejudice the aspect of the order awarding attorney’s fees. See Anglia Jacs & Co. v. Dubin

, 783 So. 2d 1155 , 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001 ).

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

K UNTZ and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.