alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12215]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL00-73-000]


Mansfield Municipal Electric Department and North Attleborough 
Electric Department, Complainants, v. New England Power Company, 
Respondent; Notice of Complaint

May 10, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 5, 2000, the Mansfield Municipal Electric 
Department and North Attleborough Electric Department (Municipal 
Complainants) filed a complaint against New England Power Company 
(NEP). The complaint asserts that NEP's assessment of rolled-in network 
service charges for service provided to the Municipal Complainants 
entirely over limited high-voltage radial lines is unjust and 
unreasonable. The Complaint requests that the Commission summarily rule 
that NEP's charges to the Municipal Complainants under Tariff No. 9 
must be limited to a level appropriately tied to the depreciated (i.e., 
net plant, not gross plant) value of the limited, high-voltage, non-
integrated facilities the Municipals actually use to connect to the 
NEPOOL high-voltage pool transmission facilities. The Complaint further 
requests that the Municipal Complainants be refunded the difference 
between the unreasonable rolled-in charges and the appropriate, direct-
assignment charges (plus applicable transition charges) for the 15-
month refund window afforded by Section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 
and that the refund window be set to commence July 4, 2000, the 
earliest date allowed under FPA Section 206.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions 
or protests must be filed on or before May 30, 2000. 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 
proceeding. 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 also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers to the 
complaint shall also be due on or before May 30, 2000.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12215 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**We grant the request of The Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC (YMC) for amendment of the 

exemption granted by Order 2012-2-1, to the extent necessary to permit YMC to make use of 

more than one aircraft as needs may dictate. Except to the extent authorized here, the 

authority granted remains subject to the conditions of Order 2012-2-1.

Approved under assigned authority on

June 13, 2014**

Director, Office of International Aviation
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Simmons, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 168]

—Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated February 14, 1995 *(People v Simmons,*212 AD2d 642), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered July 30, 1991.

*409Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see, *Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, Santucci and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(File No. 333-59825, effective July 24, 1998, File No. 333-66331, effective October 29, 1998,Amendment No. 1 thereto dated February 22, 1999, File No. 333-76527, effective April 19, 1999, FileNo. 333-79919, effective June 3, 1999 and File No. 333-31330, effective February 29, 2000) ofBindView Development Corporation of our report dated February 10, 2004, except as to Note 16 forwhich the date is December 20, 2004, relating to the financial statements and financial statementschedule of BindView Development Corporation, which appears in thisForm 10-K/A, Amendment No. 1. We also consentto the reference to us under the heading “Selected Financial Data” in such Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 1.
/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
#### § 437.3 Definitions.

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76726, Sept. 19, 2024.

*Envelope expansion* means any portion of a flight where planned operations will subject a reusable suborbital rocket to the effects of altitude, velocity, acceleration, or burn duration that exceed a level or duration successfully verified during an earlier flight.

*Exclusion area* means an area, within an operating area, that a reusable suborbital rocket's instantaneous impact point may not traverse.

*Operating area* means a three-dimensional region where permitted flights may take place.

*Permitted vehicle* means a reusable suborbital rocket operated by a launch or reentry operator under an experimental permit.

*Reentry impact point* means the location of a reusable suborbital rocket's instantaneous impact point during its unpowered exoatmospheric suborbital flight.

[Docket No. FAA-2006-24197, 72 FR 17019, Apr. 6, 2007, as amended by Doc. No. FAA-2019-0229, Amdt. 437-3, 85 FR 79718, Dec. 10, 2020]
#### § 93.125 Arrival or departure reservation.

Except between 12 Midnight and 6 a.m. local time, no person may operate an aircraft to or from an airport designated as a high density traffic airport unless he has received, for that operation, an arrival or departure reservation from ATC.

[Doc. No. 9974, 37 FR 22794, Oct. 25, 1972]
#### § 1603.306 Judicial review.

Any party to a complaint who is aggrieved by a final decision under § 1603.304 may obtain a review of such final decision under chapter 158 of title 28 of the United States Code by filing a petition for review with a United States Court of Appeals within 60 days after issuance of the final decision. Such petition for review should be filed in the judicial circuit in which the petitioner resides or has its principal office, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

[62 FR 17543, Apr. 10, 1997, as amended at 89 FR 47853, June 4, 2024]
From: gthomas@bp.Guardian.com

To: Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/17/2012 05:39 PM

Subject: Guardian Kingman Preliminary Test Results

Susan, as you requested, I am forwarding the preliminary test results from the Kingman furnace stack.

See the pdf files attached to the email below.

The Method 0061 chrome results were slightly lower compared to the Method

29 chrome results for the other three melters already tested in 2010 (Albion, Inwood & Winnsboro) but

the same order of magnitude.

The Method 29 chrome results were higher compared to the Method 29 chrome results for the other

three melters already tested in 2010 (Albion, Inwood & Winn sboro) but the same order of magnitude as

the Winnsboro melter.

The vaporous back half chrome emissions are an order of magnitude lower, so, in our case, the filterable

front half represents over 80% of the chrome.

The hexavalent chrome emissions were sl ightly higher compared to the other three melters already

tested in 2010 (Albion, Inwood & Winnsboro) but the same order of magnitude and almost no

difference.

We also tested HF and HCL and they were an order of magnitude lower compared to the Albion, Inw ood

and Winnsboro furnaces.

In sum, nothing surprising. The emissions for the four (4) plants tested so far are about the same.

I am headed to Inwood next week for testing of that furnace. As time permits, I will forward the

Kingman test report when it becomes available.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Kind regards,

Grover Thomas

----- Forwarded by Grover Thomas/BP/Guardian_Industries on 02/17/2012

05:01

PM

-----

"Tony Blanton"

<tony@integrityair.net>

To

< gthomas@bp.Guardian.com >

02/17/2012 03:41

cc

PM "Jim Lewis"

< jim@integrityair.net >

Subject

Kingman Results

Please respond to

"Tony Blanton"

<tony@integrityai

r.net>

Grover,

Please see attached the results from the Kingman Melter sampling.

Thank you

J.A. "Tony" Blanton, QSTI

President

Integrity Air Monitoring, Inc.

PO Box 559

Huntersville, NC 28070

- 0559

www.integrityair.net

(704) 9 48

- 2359

(704) 948

- 2361 fax

(704) 618

- 5082 mobile(See attached file: 26A.pdf)(See attached file: 29 w particulate.pdf)(See attached

file: 0061.pdf) [attachment "26A.pdf" deleted by Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "29 w

particulate.pdf" deleted by Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "0061.pdf" deleted by Susan

Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US]
#### Robert J. Stewart, Appellant, *v.*Henry N. Ahrens, Respondent.

Argued March 1, 1937;

decided March 16, 1937.

*Horace M. Gray*for appellant.

*Walter H. Merritt*for respondent.

Appeal dismissed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Htjbbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
#### § 1470.1 Purpose and scope of this part.

This part establishes uniform administrative rules for Federal grants and cooperative agreements and subawards to State, local and Indian tribal governments.
#### TRESHANSKY et v NORTHERN OHIO LUMBER CO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 9795.

Decided September 16, 1929

Messrs. B. A. Feldman and J. Moldaver, Cleveland, for Treshansky.

Mr. Paul Howland, Cleveland, for Lumber Co.

*647VICKERY, PJ.

We have gone over this record, we have heard the arguments of counsel and we have familiarized ourselves with the briefs, and we cannot say that the court erred. Is it possible that a man having a note that he receives in the regular course of business for a valuable consideration, makes himself responsible, if he puts that note in judgment, for malicious prosecution, abuse of process and slander of title, or because the judgment becomes a lien upon the lands owned by the judgment debtor lying within the county? To promulgate such a doctrine would make it very hazardous indeed for anybody to seek the aid of the courts in collecting anything that might be due him or claimed to be due him.

It is claimed that this note upon which judgment was taken, as a matter of fact was never delivered to Kerman; that it was an uncompleted deal and that the note was stolen from the desk of Mr. Blythin. Of course, if that was so, it might and it might not be a defense against the pérson to whom the note was given, and into .whose hands the note ultimately fell for value before maturity depending entirely upon, the circumstances. Usually the non-delivery of the note is a defense to the note, but unless the evidence in this record would show that the defendant in error in this action, the defendant below, was a .party to that and connived at it, or knew of the situation and then maliciously and wilfully, to injure the plaintiffs, put this note in judgment when they knew the circumstances, there would be no right of action for relief such as sought for in this petition. It might be a complete defence to the action and. grounds for vacating and setting aside the judgment but would not make the defendant liable for an action as is sought to be maintained here.

The evidence falls short of showing that the defendant knew that this note was stolen or had not been properly negotiated. The evidence on this is to the contrary.

There is some evidence to show that plaintiffs suffered some damage by the judgment being a lien upon their property. That is one of the things that follow a judgment, but there is nothing to show either malicious prosecution or abuse of process. The dismissing of the first suit is accounted for because it was prematurely brought; the dismissal of the last suit is accounted for because the claim for Which this note was given as collateral had been satisfied and paid by Kerman. Consequently defendant had no interest in it. It had nothing to do but dismiss its action and everything certainly was regular in every way, so far as it appears, and there was an abundance of cause for it to bring this suit and there is no evidence of malice or abuse of process and for *648that reason we can do no other than to affirm the judgment of the common pleas court.
# Mother's Day, 2000

We are living in a new century and a new age, where the revolution in communications technology is changing almost every aspect of human experience. But even in this new era of global connections, there is perhaps no more powerful link than the love between mother and child.

That bond is a child's first experience of the world, and that love is often the deepest source of the self-esteem, courage, and character that children need to thrive. Mothers are their children's first teachers; they are their inspiring role models whose generosity, compassion, and unconditional acceptance give children the strength and encouragement to reach their fullest potential and to make their own contributions to their families, communities, and country.

Even in this age of spectacular technological advances, mothers still face the daunting challenges of balancing the responsibilities of home and work and meeting the changing emotional, educational, and physical needs of their children. Mothers strive to provide a safe and nurturing environment. They help their children navigate the often stormy waters of an increasingly complicated world. They teach their children to approach conflict with words, not violence; to cherish the richness of our diversity and reject prejudice in any form; and to believe in themselves.

Each year we set aside this special day to acknowledge all that our mothers—whether biological or foster, adoptive or stepmothers—have given us. It is a time to reflect on all we have gained from their unwavering care, guidance, and sacrifice, and a time to express openly our deep gratitude and abiding love. The Congress, by a joint resolution approved May 8, 1914 (38 Stat. 770), has designated the second Sunday in May of each year as “Mother's Day” and requested the President to call for its appropriate observance.

                        NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 14, 2000, as Mother's Day. Whether we are able to share this special day with our mothers in person or are blessed only with our memories of their love, in our hearts they remain with us always. I urge all Americans to express their love and respect for their mothers on this day, to speak the words of appreciation we too often neglect to say, and to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs.                              ( print page 30828)    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-fourth.

[FR Doc. 00-12259

Billing code 3195-01-P
§ 415.9 Issuance of a launch license. ( a ) The FAA issues a launch license to an applicant who has obtained all approvals and determinations required under this chapter for a license.
( b ) A launch license authorizes a licensee to conduct a launch or launches in accordance with the representations contained in the licensee's application, subject to the licensee's compliance with terms and conditions contained in license orders accompanying the license, including financial responsibility requirements, and part 417 of this chapter.
[Amdt. 415-03, 64 FR 19616, Apr. 21, 1999, as amended by Amdt. 415-4, 71 FR 50531, Aug. 25, 2006]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

DONAVAN THOMAS CULPS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-30241 

D.C. No. 1:18-cr-02023-SAB-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Stanley A. Bastian, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 17, 2021**

Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges. 

Donavan Thomas Culps appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges his guilty-plea conviction, life sentence, and restitution order for

second-degree murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1153. Pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Culps’s counsel has filed a brief stating 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 25 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-30241 

that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of 

record. We have provided Culps the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental 

brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 102.181 Administrative and procedural requests referred to Executive Secretary.

During any period when the Board lacks a quorum, administrative and procedural requests that would normally be filed with the Office of the Executive Secretary for decision by the Board prior to the filing of a request for review under § 102.67, or exceptions under §§ 102.46 and 102.69, will be referred to the Executive Secretary for ruling. Rulings by the Executive Secretary, and orders in connection therewith, may not be appealed directly to the Board, but will be considered by the Board if such matters are raised by a party in its request for review or exceptions.

[82 FR 11786, Feb. 24, 2017]
#### § 102.98 Petition for advisory opinion; who may file; where to file.

Whenever an agency or court of any State or territory is in doubt whether the Board would assert jurisdiction over the parties in a proceeding pending before such agency or court, the agency or court may file a petition with the Board for an advisory opinion on whether the Board would decline to assert jurisdiction over the parties before the agency or the court (1) on the basis of its current standards, or (2) because the employing enterprise is not within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Act.

[24 FR 9102, Nov. 7, 1959, as amended at 51 FR 15613, Apr. 25, 1986; 61 FR 65182, Dec. 11, 1996]
EXHIBIT 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


         We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in (a) the  Registration
Statement  (Form  S-8  No.  333-3212)   pertaining  to  the  Columbus   McKinnon
Corporation 1995 Incentive Stock Option Plan, the Columbus McKinnon  Corporation
Non-Qualified  Stock Option Plan, the Columbus McKinnon  Corporation  Restricted
Stock Plan and the Columbus McKinnon  Corporation  Employee Stock Ownership Plan
Restatement Effective April 1, 1989 of Columbus McKinnon Corporation and (b) the
Registration  Statement  (Form  S-8 No.  333-81719)  pertaining  to the  Options
assumed  by  Columbus  McKinnon  Corporation  originally  granted  under  the GL
International,  Inc.  1997 Stock Option Plan and the Larco  Industrial  Services
Ltd.  1997 Stock Option Plan of our report  dated May 12, 2004,  with respect to
the  consolidated  financial  statements  and  financial  statement  schedule of
Columbus McKinnon  Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended March 31, 2004.


                                               /S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Buffalo, New York
June 22, 2004
#### WEAVER v STATE

Ohio Supreme Court

No 20861.

Decided Feb. 20, 1929

Syllabus by

ROBINSON, J

TRIAL

(590 E3n) Hearsay evidence that would be incompetent if offered by the State in chief is not rendered competent by the fact that it is elicited by the State from the witness of the accused upon cross examination.

The fact that hearsay evidence is elicited under the guise of laying a foundation for impeachment does not render it competent.

(590 W3g) The introduction of incompetent evidence by way of cross-examination, under the guise of laying a foundation for impeachment, does not furnish a. foundation upon which to introduce further incompetent evidence by way of impeachment.

When it is made to appear to the court that the purpose or the effect of offering impeaching testimony is or will be to bring incompetent evidence to the knowledge of the jury, it is the duty of the court to require that such impeaching testimony be confined to a denial or an affirmance of a question or questions for which a foundation has been laid, and which do not include incompetent evidence.

CRIMINAL LAW

(190 E4) The right of the State, in the prosecution of a criminal action, to cross-examine and impeach the witnesses of the accused does not abrogate the constitutional right of the accused to face and cross-examine every person out of whose declarations the State seeks to condemn him.

Kinkade, Jones, Matthias and Allen, JJ, concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12087]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the 
Proposed Navajo Ten-Year Forest Management Plan, Navajo Nation, 
Arizona/New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Correction to Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice corrects the closing date for the public comment 
period published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2000 (65 FR 
20197), for the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for 
the Proposed Navajo Ten-Year Forest Management Plan, Navajo Nation, 
Arizona/New Mexico. The closing date is changed from June 15, 2000 to 
May 15, 2000. All other information published in the April 14, 2000 
notice remains unchanged.

DATES: The correct date by which written comments must arrive is May 
15, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold D. Russell, 520-729-7228.

    Dated: May 8, 2000.
Kevin Gover,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 00-12087 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P