alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. CP92-166-005]

Take notice that The Providence Gas Company (Providence Gas), on April 26, 2000, tendered for filing an application to amend the limited-jurisdiction blanket transportation certificate issued in the above-captioned docket by substituting the name of the holder of the certificate.

Upon the consummation of a merger agreement between Providence Energy Corporation and Southern Union Company, Providence Gas will cease to exist as a separate legal entity. Providence Gas requests that the Commission amend the blanket certificate to reflect the name of Southern Union Company as the holder of the certificate effective upon the consummation of the merger. Providence Gas states that there will be no material changes to the services provided under the blanket certificate.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest the 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 must be filed on or before May 31, 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).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-12214  Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### The People, on the relation of Benjamin, *vs.*Cortland C. P.

ALBANY,

March, 1839.

On the affirmance or reversal of a justice’s judgment, removed into a court of common pleas by *certiorari,*the costs of the prevailing party can be taxed only by the Srst judge of the county, or other county judge of the degree of counsel in this court.

Motion for a peremptory mandamus, on the return to an alternative writ. A justice’s judgment was removed into the *646C. P. by *certiorari*and reversed. The relator, who was the piaintjflf jn error, in perfecting the judgment of reversal, had the record signed by William Bartlett, a judge of the C. P., ^ut w^° was neither the first judge, nor of the degree of counsellor in the supreme court. On the motion of John Hutchinson, the defendant in error, the common pleas set aside the judgment record and subsequent proceedings on the ground that Judge Bartlett had no authority to tax the costs or sign the record. The relator insists that the C. P. erred.

*J. Holmes,*for relator.

*M. T. Reynolds,*contra.

*By ¿the Court,*

Bronson, J.

I think the C. P. decided correctly. None but the first judge, or some other judge of the county, being of the degree of counsellor of the supreme court, can tax costs or sign a record, except in those cases where *the total amount*of the costs to be taxed, *exclusive of disbursements,*is *j.limited by law. 2*R. S. 282, § 35, 37. Just such a limitation as this, and the one which I think the legislature had in view, will be found in another statute, which provides for four classes of cases, in which the plaintiff’s costs, *exclusive of disbursements,*shall be taxed *at certain specified*sums, *and no more.*2 R. S. 615, § 13. The limitation of costs on certiorari in the C. P., is of a different character. 2 R. S. 257. § 184. It is a limitation of the whole amount of costs, *including*disbursements. There is a further difference between the two provisions. In the first, the costs, exclusive of disbursements, are to be taxed at certain specified sums—neither more nor less : but in the last* although the costs cannot exceed, they may be less than ■the specified sum. The one case does not call for the exercise of any discretion on the part of the taxing officer; the ether does.

This is a case in which a strict construction of the statute will most fully carry into effect the intention of the legisla*647ture. It will give the taxation of costs, in all cases where it is not a mere form, to those officers who are deemed by law best qualified to discharge that duly.

Motion denied.
# EUR-Lex - 31996D0317 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996D0317

**96/317/EC: Council Decision of 13 May 1996 concerning the conclusion of the results of consultations with Thailand under GATT Article XXIII **

*
Official Journal L 122 , 22/05/1996 P. 0015 - 0015 *

COUNCIL DECISION of 13 May 1996 concerning the conclusion of the results of consultations with Thailand under GATT Article XXIII (96/317/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 113, in conjunction with Article 228 (2), first sentence thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas the Community has entered into consultations under GATT Article XXIII with Thailand on the Community's import regime for rice;

Whereas the result of these consultations are contained in an agreement in the form of an exchange of letters;

Whereas it is in the interest of the Community to approve this agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Kingdom of Thailand on consultations under GATT Article XXIII on rice is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

The text of the Agreement referred to in the first paragraph is attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Community.

Article 3

The Commission shall adopt the detailed rules as regards the tariff rate quotas for broken rice and manioc starch in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 23 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organization of the market in cereals (1).

Done at Brussels, 13 May 1996.

For the Council

The President

S. AGNELLI

(1) OJ No L 181, 1. 7. 1992, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1863/95 (OJ No L 179, 29. 7. 1995, p. 1).
Docket No. FAA - 2012 - 1036
#### Jacobs *vs.*Fountain.

In the action of account, notice of the hearing before the referees need not be given where the defendant 'has not appeared in the action in person or by attorney.

*H. Brewster,*for defendant.

P. *Cagger,*for plaintiff.

In the action of *account,*where the defendant suffers judgment by default, and does not appear either in person or by attorney, and the cause is referred, the referrees may proceed to take and settle the account without notifying the defendant of the time and place of hearing. The statute only applies to cases where the defendant has appeared in the action. 2 R. S. 385, § 51. General Rules of Court, 12.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**HORIZON
      HOLDING CORPORATION**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350**




The
      undersigned, Steven Weldon, in his capacities as Chief Executive Officer and
      Chief Financial Officer, of Inverted Paradigms Corporation do each hereby
      certify that the Form 10-KSB of Inverted Paradigms Corporation for the year
      ended December 31, 2005 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 that the information contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Inverted Paradigms Corporation




This
      certification is given by the undersigned solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.
      1350 and is subject to the knowledge standard contained therein.




/s/
                Steven WeldonSteven
                WeldonChief
                Executive Officer and Chief Financial
                Officer


May
      16,
      2007
#### § 1450.3 Use of procedures.

Procedures authorized by this regulation (including, but not limited to, disclosure to a consumer reporting agency, contracting for collection services, administrative offset and salary offset) may be used singly or in combination, so long as the requirements of applicable law and regulation are satisfied.
§ 25.1324 Angle of attack system. Each angle of attack system sensor must be heated or have an equivalent means of preventing malfunction in the heavy rain conditions defined in Table 1 of § 25.1323, the mixed phase and ice crystal conditions as defined in part 33, Appendix D, of this chapter, the icing conditions defined in Appendix C of this part, and the following icing conditions specified in Appendix O of this part: ( a ) For airplanes certificated in accordance with § 25.1420(a)(1), the icing conditions that the airplane is certified to safely exit following detection.
( b ) For airplanes certificated in accordance with § 25.1420(a)(2), the icing conditions that the airplane is certified to safely operate in and the icing conditions that the airplane is certified to safely exit following detection.
( c ) For airplanes certificated in accordance with § 25.1420(a)(3) and for airplanes not subject to § 25.1420, all icing conditions.
[Amdt. 25-140, 79 FR 65527, Nov. 4, 2014]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 94 (Monday, May 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12239]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

Time and Date: 10 a.m., Thursday, May 18, 2000.

Place:  Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:   
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any matters carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the 
Board; 202-452-3204.

Supplementary Information: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Dated: May 11, 2000.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-12239 Filed 5-11-00; 10:24 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### ORRVILLE (Village) v COYLE

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Wayne Co

No. 856.

Decided October 17, 1929

Messrs. A. H. Etling, and Weiser & Weimer, all of Wooster, for Orrville (Village) .

Messrs. Troutman & Taggart and Weygandt & Ross and Carl Hoover, all of Wooster, for Coyle.

Syllabus by PARDEE, J.

The length of time that an obstruction is across a_ sidewalk in a village, is only one of the' elements which determine whether a village has constructive notice of its presence, and a court is not warranted in taking a case from the jury solely upon a consideration of that element. All of the facts disclosed by the *714evidence which have a bearing, upon the question of notice must be considered, and generally the issue is one of fact for the jury rather than one of law for the court.

Full opinion will be published later.
#### Harrison *v.*Breeden.

It is not necessary to the validity of a mechanic’s Ken that the contract for labor and materials should be reduced to writing; the lien will attach if suit is brought within the time prescribed by the-statute.

IN ERROR from the circuit court of the county of Adams.

This was a proceeding, by petition, in'the circuit court, to enforce a mechanic’s lien, where the contract had not been reduced to writing.

Sanders for plaintiff in error.

Montgomery & Boyd *contra.*

*Per Curiam.*

.This case involves the construction of the law in regard to the lien of mechanics, and all the questions involved in the record have been determined at the present term of this court, in the case of Richardson *v.*Warwick & Ray. See ante, page 131.

It is insisted, in this case, that the lien can only attach when the contract for the work or materials has been reduced to writing. The contract, in the case just cited, was a verbal one; and, although the point was not made, it was the subject of consideration.

The statute does not, in express terms, require the contract to be written; and there is no reason why we should insert a condition. If it be not reduced to writing, it cannot be recorded; and one of the modes of preserving the lien cannot be resorted to, yet the other mode of retaining it, by bringing suit, may be adopted. Writing is rarely, if ever, necessary to the validity of a contract, unless by virtue of.some statutory provision.

The other objections urged in this'cause were expressly considered and overruled in the case above cited.

The judgment will be affirmed.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 12, 2018 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01461-CR 

HENRY CHAVEZ, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F18-00225-H 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Myers, and Justice Stoddart 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

Henry Chavez appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. After 

appellant pleaded guilty under a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court found him 

guilty and assessed punishment, enhanced by a prior felony conviction, at ten years in prison. 

Appellant then filed this appeal. 

A defendant perfects his appeal by timely filing a written notice of appeal with the trial 

court clerk. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(c). To be timely, the notice of appeal must be filed within 

thirty days after the date sentence was imposed or within ninety days after sentencing if the 

defendant timely filed a motion for new trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). In the absence of a 

timely perfected notice of appeal, the Court must dismiss the appeal. Ex parte Castillo, 369 

S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). 
 –2– 

In this case, the trial court entered judgment on July 9, 2018. Because appellant did not 

file a motion for new trial, appellant’s notice of appeal was due on August 8, 2018. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed until December 5, 2018. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 25.2(c)(1). Under these circumstances, we conclude appellant’s notice of appeal was 

untimely and we must dismiss the appeal.1 

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

181461F.U05 

 

 1 We also note that under the plea bargain agreement, appellant waived his right to appeal, and the trial court certified that appellant 

waived his right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2; Dears v. State, 154 S.W. 3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding when right to appeal 

is waived in plea bargain between defendant and State, and trial court certifies defendant waived right, court of appeals lacks jurisdiction and must 

dismiss appeal).. 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

HENRY CHAVEZ, Appellant 

No. 05-18-01461-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 1, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F18-00225-H. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Myers and Stoddart participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered December 12, 2018.
Exhibit 10.30



              Base Salaries of Named Executive Officers of KeySpan
                        in Effect as of February 20, 2007

On February 20, 2007,  following  the  recommendation  of the  Compensation  and
Management  Development  Committee,  KeySpan's  Board of Directors  set the 2007
annual  base  salaries  of the named  executive  officers  (as  defined  in Item
402(a)(3) of Regulation  S-K) of KeySpan  Corporation  (effective as of the date
indicated) as follows:


            Named Executive Officer                      Salary
            -----------------------                      ------


            Robert B. Catell                             $1,220,000
            (Effective January 1, 2007)

            Gerald Luterman                              $522,000
            (Effective February 1, 2007)

            Robert J. Fani                               $919,000
            (Effective January 1, 2007)

            Wallace P. Parker, Jr.                       $668,000
            (Effective January 1, 2007)

            Steven L. Zelkowitz                          $668,000
            (Effective January 1, 2007)
#### Townley *v.*Burgin.

Dismissal of Suit.

(Decided May 11, 1915.

Rehearing denied July 6, 1915.

69 South. 591.)

1. Dismissal and Non-Suit; Remedy. — Where the trial court erroneously dismisses a suit for failure to revive, as required by law, against the administrator of a deceased defendant, plaintiff’s remedy is by mandamus and not by appeal, as there is no defendant against whom an appeal can he prosecuted.

2. Same. — Where there has been a judgment of dismissal and the cost taxed in a case where both plaintiff and defendant are before the court, an appeal from the judgment is the proper remedy to secure reinstatement.

(The judgment in this case was reviewed by the Supreme Court on application for certiorari to Court of Appeals, and the majority of the court were of the opinion that the writ should be denied. — 70 South. 1014. — Reporter.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Sharpe.

Action by L. L. Townley as administrator against J. B. Bur-gin, in which plaintiff’s suit was dismissed for a failure to revive against the administrator of deceased defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

E. N. Hamil, for appellant. Richard H. Fries, and W. A. Jenkins, for appellee.

THOMAS, J.

(1) The proper remedy of a plaintiff to get reinstated his suit, which has been dismissed by the trial court under circumstances, as here, for an alleged failure of plaintiff, appellant, to revive as required by law against the administrator of a deceased defendant, is by mandamus, if the action of the court in dismissing was error, and not by appeal, as was in this case resorted to by plaintiff, *appellant.*—State *ex rel. Wilder v. Smith, Judge, etc.,*12 Ala. App. 636, 68 South. 490; *Ex parte Jones,*54 Ala. 108; *Ex parte Sayre,*69 Ala. 184; *Ex parte Howell,*118 Ala. 178, 24 South. 500; 2 Spelling’s Extraordinary Relief, § 2393, note 3, where Alabama cases are reviewed.

*558
      (2) Of course, appeal is the proper remedy where there has been a judgment of dismissal and costs taxed in a case where there are two parties before the court, a plaintiff and a defendant *(Davis v. McColloch,*191 Ala. 520, 67 South. 701; *Ex parte Smith,*168 Ala. 179, 52 South. 895; *Lapsley v. Weaver,*44 Ala. 131; *Ex parte Hendree,*49 Ala. 360; *Steamboat Empire v. Ala. Coal Min. Co.,*29 Ala. 698; *Ex parte Bottoms,*46 Ala. 312, and other cases cited in appellant’s brief) ; but where, as here, there is only one party before the court — the plaintiff — and his suit is dismissed because of a failure to revive against a deceased defendant, then the proper remedy for reviewing the action of the court in dismissing or abating the cause is by mandamus, as there is no defendant against whom an appeal can be prosecuted. Authorities first cited.

It follows that the appeal must be, and is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
SM Energy s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 5, 2013

N o. 04

- 12

- 00772

- CV

W.H. SUTTON , Arctic Royalty Limited Partnership, Julie S. Mueller, Janet Lee Smith as

Trustee of the Ja net Lee Smith Family Trust, Anita Louise Davies as Trustee of the Anita Louise

Davies Family Trust and Frederick Jackson Bell Jr., et al.,

Appellants

v.

SM ENERGY COMPANY,

Appellee s

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CVQ001903 D3

Honorable Elma T. Salinas Ender, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellants' motion for extension of time to file motion for rehearing is hereby

GRANTED. Appellants’ motion for rehearing is due on or before January 2, 2014.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 5th day of December, 2013

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
* . - 2 1 ”
' ; 69-244
iy e : OPEN FILE 1969
ks 163° 30°
164° 00 : ee
a» ms ‘ : ~
~ Fo
fe \
e
/ _ be
a , a A
\ ~ ‘ : iy
)

y a
x bh

A. y cr

4 in
/ Of: ‘ A

~_ > t ea
|
y al
-

100 0 100 200 300 miles | ye ae és 4
[= a —— = ==] \ aa 2

Scale

INDEX MAP OF ALASKA SHOWING LOCATION OF SEWARD PENINSULA AIRBORNE GEOPHYSICAL
SURVEYS, 1968. SEE DETAILED INDEX .FOR ACTUAL COVERAGE

SURVEY

les

163° 30°

Flown and compiled by Lockwood, Kessler,
and Bartlett, Inc., 1968.

\

PENIN QUA AREA; ALASKA AEROMAGNETIC oP AND PROFILES OF oar OF THE

SEWARD PENINSULA ALASKA

SHEET NUMBER 40F//

\ N
. LKB 1968
4 \ 380
. U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY This map is preliminary
\ Released to open file and has not been edited
+ . or reviewed for conformity . 4,
~ ie 4 Be ER to Geological Survey standards
#### § 252.2 Applicability.

This part applies to operations of air carriers engaged in interstate, intrastate and foreign air transportation and to foreign air carriers engaged in foreign air transportation.

[Docket DOT-OST-2011-0044, 81 FR 11427, Mar. 4, 2016]
#### Montgomery *et al. v.*Commissioners of the Sinking Fund.

The commissioners of the sinking fund have a right to loan the same at interest, and to sue for and collect it. •

The plaintiff may discontinue against ofte maker of a joint and several note, and proceed against the others to judgment.

IN ERROR from the circuit court of the county of Adams.

*Per Curiam.*

The principles involved in these cases are the same, and are such as have been settled by decisions of this court, viz.

First. That the commissioners of the sinking fund of the Planters’ Bank have the right to lend, and to sue for and recover the money so loaned. Com. of Sinking Fund *v.*R. J. Walker *et al.*6 How. 143.

Second. That a plaintiff may discontinue his action as to one of several joint and several defendants, and proceed against the others to judgment. 5 How. 196; 1 How. 477; 2 How. 870; 4 How. 377; 5 John. R. 160; 1 Pick. 500; 1 Saund. Rep. 207, n. 2; 1 Pet. Rep. 74, 75, 86.

Judgments affirmed.