alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 107 (Friday, June 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13776]



[[Page 35336]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP97-14-007]


Midwestern Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate 
Filing

May 26, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 18, 2000, Midwestern Gas Transmission 
Company (Midwestern), tendered for filing and acceptance a copy of an 
executed firm gas transportation service agreement pursuant to 
Midwestern's Rate Schedule FT-A between Midwestern and Dynegy Marketing 
and Trade (Dynegy) (Contract No. 33395); and a copy of an April 18, 
2000 Firm Transportation Negotiated Rate Letter Agreement entered into 
by Midwestern and Dynegy for Contract No. 33395 (Letter Agreement). The 
filed Contract No. 33395 and the Letter Agreement reflect a negotiated 
rate arrangement between Midwestern and Dynegy (Negotiated Rate 
Arrangement). Midwestern seeks a June 1, 2000 effective date for the 
Negotiated Rate Arrangement.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion 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 on or 
before June 1, 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 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).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-13776 Filed 6-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### JOSEPH N. GREENE, Respondent, v. JOHN W. THOMAS, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on the report of a referee.

The plaintiff entered into a contract with Cornell University to erect and finish a certain building. Subsequently he made a subcontract with the defendant, by which the defendant, for a certain fixed sum, was to do all the carpenter work, find materials therefor, and do the painting, etc., in said building. The defendant commenced the work, and, after he had done a part thereof, abandoned the same without good cause. The plaintiff completed the work and sued the defendant for damages for the breach of the contract. The referee before whom the cause was tried allowed the plaintiff, among other things, $900 for his services in superintending the completion of the carpenter work. The only objection raised on this appeal was to this item of $900.

The court at General Term *held,*that as, if the defendant had fulfilled his contract according to the agreement, the plaintiff would not have been obliged to devote any of his own time to the superintendence of the workmen doing the carpenter work; and that as the referee had allowed this, item to the plaintiff, it must suppose that he found the superintendence to be necessary, and it was therefore a proper item to be allowed, and the judgment should be affirmed.

*George F. Danforth,*for the appellant.

*B. A. Benedict,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Learned, P. J.

Present — Learned, P. J., Boardman and James, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
p.1 

OAR Box 1784 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

49) ll-B-8 

Docket Number: 

A-84-44 

Printed 10/31/2008 8:05:40 AM Sheet 49 of 143 
P.2 

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 

The computer printout entitled "Source Data Report" from EPA's 

Compliance Data System, run on November 19, 1985, for NSPS Subpart J's Facilities, 

This printout is considered confidential and for internal EPA use only.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-22685-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

DAVID DYLAN MCPECK,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARLA RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record. On August 24, 

2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint. ECF No. [1]. For the reasons set forth below, the Complaint is 

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

“[I]t is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction 

sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 

(11th Cir. 1999). “The jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of a claim involves the court’s 

competency to consider a given type of case, and cannot be waived or otherwise conferred upon 

the court by the parties.” Id. (quotation omitted). Accordingly, “once a federal court determines

that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue.” Id. “A district 

Court can hear a case only if it has at least one of three types of subject matter jurisdiction: (1) 

jurisdiction under specific statutory grant; (2) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331; or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” Thermoset Corp. v. Bldg. 

Materials Corp. of Am., 849 F.3d 1313, 1317 (11th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted).

Case 1:22-cv-22685-BB Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2022 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 22-cv-22685-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2

In his Complaint, Plaintiff sues a forensic psychologist for her alleged “[f]alse diagnosis” 

of Plaintiff, which “tarnished [his] name, caused imprisonment, denied bond.” ECF No. [1] at 2, 

4. Plaintiff has checked “Federal question” as the basis for federal jurisdiction, but as to the specific 

federal question, he has written “19 Fla. Jur 2d Defemation and Privacy usc 1.” Id. at 3. 

As best the Court can tell from Plaintiff’s barebones Complaint, he seeks to bring a 

defamation lawsuit against a forensic psychologist. Defamation is a matter of state law, not federal. 

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not raise a federal question; there is no indication that the parties are 

diverse; nor is there an allegation that jurisdiction exists under a specific statute. See Thermoset 

Corp., 849 F.3d at 1317 (citing the three bases for federal jurisdiction). Plaintiff has failed to set 

forth an adequate basis for the Court to exercise jurisdiction in this case.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows;

1. The Complaint, ECF No. [1], is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT and all deadlines are 

TERMINATED;

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on August 24, 2022.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

david.mcpeck3@gmail.com

Case 1:22-cv-22685-BB Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2022 Page 2 of 2
§ 160.215 Force majeure. When a vessel is bound for a port or place of the United States under force majeure, it must comply with the requirements in this section, but not other sections of this subpart. The vessel must report the following information to the nearest Captain of the Port as soon as practicable: ( a ) The vessel Master's intentions;
( b ) Any hazardous conditions as defined in § 160.202; and
( c ) If the vessel is carrying certain dangerous cargo or controlling a vessel carrying certain dangerous cargo, the amount and name of each CDC carried, including cargo UN number if applicable.
[USCG-2000-7080, 81 FR 59137, Aug. 29, 2016]
****

****

**EXHIBIT 99.1**

Audit Opinion of Predecessor Independent Public Accountants

 

 

 

 

Report of Independent Public Accountants

 

 

To Santander BanCorp:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Santander BanCorp and Subsidiaries (a Puerto Rico corporation and a subsidiary of Banco Santander Central Hispano, S.A.) as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the relatedconsolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and other comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2001. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Corporation ́smanagement. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements arefree of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, aswell as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Santander BanCorp and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the results of their operations andtheir cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2001, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

 

Arthur Andersen LLP (1)

San Juan, Puerto Rico,

January 7, 2002.

Revenue Stamp No. 1760049

has been affixed to the

original copy of this report.

 

(1) This report is a copy of the previously issued report covering 2001, 2000 and 1999. The predecessor auditors have not reissued this report.
February 12, 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington D.C., 20590

Reference: Amendment to Measure’s Exemption No. 12646 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–

1602 to include additional UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems).

Dear Sir or Madam,

Measure was issued exemption no. 12646 (hereinafter referred to as the exemption) for 

operation in the national airspace. Measure hereby requests an amendment to the exemption to 

allow additional Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) with no changes in the conditions and 

reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for the FAA granting the 

original exemption. 

Measure wishes to operate the following additional UAS: 

 Kespry UAS

Attached and submitted as confidential documents in a separate correspondence, are the flight 

operation manuals for the Kespry UAS. All operations of the additional UAS will be in full 

compliance with the terms of the exemption. As this is an amendment to the existing exemption

requesting only the addition of other types of UAS, Measure respectfully submits that good 

cause exists so that the notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the 

requested amendment. 

Sincerely,

Brandon Torres Declet

CEO & Co-Founder

Mobile: +1 202 251 8266

Office: +1 202 793 3052

bdeclet@measure.aero
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 721 

Recognizing and honoring the Smith Center High School football team. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 8 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 20), 2008 

Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. ROBERTS) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing and honoring the Smith Center High School 

football team. 

Whereas the citizens of Kansas are truly proud of the Smith 

Center High School football team for capturing the 

team’s fifth State football championship title after finishing an undefeated season; 

Whereas Smith Center has won 67 consecutive games, which 

is the third-longest winning streak among high school 

football teams in the Nation, and which breaks the State 

record; 

Whereas Smith Center set a national record by scoring 72 

first-quarter points in a playoff game in 2007; 

Whereas, in the 2007 season, Smith Center outscored its opponents 844–20; 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 721 IS 

Whereas head football coach Roger Barta has provided consistent leadership for the team, has led Smith Center to 

win 7 State titles, and was named national high school 

football coach of the year by the U.S. Army All-American 

Bowl Selection Committee; 

Whereas Smith Center players provide an excellent example 

to our Nation’s youth by signing a pledge to stay away 

from drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, and by demonstrating 

outstanding determination and teamwork; and 

Whereas the members of the Smith Center High School football team include: Ethan Eastes, Clay Pickel, Colt Rogers, Aaron McNary, Joe Osburn, Truitt Kuhlmann, Alex 

Hobelmann, Trevor Rempe, Travis Rempe, Kris Lehmann, Brock Baxter, Shawn Stansbury, Garrett 

Kuhlmann, Matt Atwood, Taylor Rippe, Tracy Hudson, 

Trey Molzahn, Aaron Sellars, Marshall McCall, Cole 

McDowell, Dereck McNary, Chase McDonald, William 

Overmiller, Jon Osburn, Nate Fiester, Monroe Schmidt, 

Joel Osburn, Kaden Roush, Brit Nixon, Van Tucker, 

Logan Tuxhorn, Dillon Corbett, Grady Brooks, Cole 

Conaway, Nathan Cox, Louis Frazier, Jesse Roush, 

Spencer VanderGiesen, Zachary Herdt, Trenton Terrill, 

Bryce Standley, Cody Tucker, Josh McDowell, Kale 

Terrill, Kelly Wiig, Jake Fischer, Curtis Favinger, Collin 

Duntz, Johny Troy, Billie Stokesbury, Josh Nixon, Justin Nixon, Anden Hughes, Spencer Kirchhoff, Jace Winder, and Kalen Mace: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) congratulates the Smith Center High School 

3 football team, including the players, head coach 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 721 IS 

1 Roger Barta, and the coaching staff, on a victorious 

2 season; and 

3 (2) thanks the team for the great honor it has 

4 brought to Smith Center and to the State of Kan5 sas. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Editorial Note on Part 149
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 149 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 149.615 What construction drawings and specifications are required? ( a ) To show compliance with the Act and this subchapter, the licensee must submit to the Commandant (CG-5P) or accepted Certifying Entity (CE) at least three copies of: ( 1 ) Each construction drawing and specification; and
( 2 ) Each revision to a drawing and specification.
( b ) Each drawing, specification, and revision under paragraph (a) of this section must bear the seal, or a facsimile imprint of the seal, of the registered professional engineer responsible for the accuracy and adequacy of the material.
( c ) Each drawing must identify the baseline design standard used as the basis for design.
[USCG-1998-3884, 71 FR 57651, Sept. 29, 2006, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39180, July 1, 2013]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING

56 Forsyth Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

David J. Smith

Clerk of Court 

March 22, 2024

For rules and forms visit

www.ca11.uscourts.gov

Clerk - Southern District of Florida 

U.S. District Court 

400 N MIAMI AVE

MIAMI, FL 33128-1810 

Appeal Number: 23-13046-CC 

Case Style: Delio Batista, et al v. Avant Assurance, Inc., et al

District Court Docket No: 1:22-cv-22671-CMA

The enclosed copy of the Clerk's Order of Dismissal pursuant to the joint stipulation of the 

parties to dismiss is issued as the mandate of this court. 

Any pending motions are now rendered moot in light of the attached order. 

Clerk's Office Phone Numbers 

General Information: 404-335-6100 Attorney Admissions: 404-335-6122 

Case Administration: 404-335-6135 Capital Cases: 404-335-6200 

CM/ECF Help Desk: 404-335-6125 Cases Set for Oral Argument: 404-335-6141 

Enclosure(s) 

DIS-3 Letter and Entry of Dismissal Vol

 

USCA11 Case: 23-13046 Document: 31 Date Filed: 03/22/2024 Page: 1 of 2 

JG Mar 22, 2024 MIAMI

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2024 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

______________

No. 23-13046-CC

______________ 

DELIO BATISTA, 

CARLOS LOPEZ, 

MARIANA LOPEZ, 

RAFAELA VALIENTE, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellees,

versus

AVANT ASSURANCE, INC., 

 Defendant - Appellant,

REINIER CORTES 

ANDREA GONZALEZ QUINTERO

 Defendants.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

__________________________________________

ORDER: Motion to voluntarily dismiss appeal filed by Appellant Avant Assurance, Inc. is 

GRANTED by clerk [10162524-2]. Pursuant to FRAP 42 and 11th Cir. R. 42-1(a), the above 

referenced appeal was duly entered dismissed on this date. 

Effective March 22, 2024. 

DAVID J. SMITH

Clerk of Court of the United States Court

of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

FOR THE COURT - BY DIRECTION 

USCA11 Case: 23-13046 Document: 31 Date Filed: 03/22/2024 Page: 2 of 2

Case 1:22-cv-22671-CMA Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2024 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Annual  Report of Stereo Vision  Entertainment,
Inc.  on Form  10-KSB for the period  ending  June 30,  2005,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, John
Honour, Chief  Executive/Financial  Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (1)      the Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in
                  all material respects,  the financial  condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.


/S/     John Honour
--------------------
John Honour
C.E.O., President, Director
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)



November 14, 2005


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 151.1021 Appeals. ( a ) Any person directly affected by an action taken under this subpart may request reconsideration by the Coast Guard officer responsible for that action.
( b ) The person affected who is not satisfied with a ruling after having it reconsidered under paragraph (a) of this section may— ( 1 ) Appeal that ruling in writing within 30 days after the ruling to the Commandant (CG-5P), Attn: Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7501, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7501; and
( 2 ) Supply supporting documentation and evidence that the appellant wishes to have considered.
( c ) After reviewing the appeal submitted under paragraph (b) of this section, the Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection issues a ruling which is final agency action.
( d ) If the delay in presenting a written appeal has an adverse impact on the operations of the appellent, the appeal under paragraph (b) of this section— ( 1 ) May be presented orally; and
( 2 ) Must be submitted in writing within five days after the oral presentation— ( i ) With the basis for the appeal and a summary of the material presented orally; and
( ii ) To the same Coast Guard official who heard the oral presentation.
[CGD 89-014, 54 FR 22548, May 24, 1989, as amended by CGD 96-026, 61 FR 33665, June 28, 1996; CGD 97-023, 62 FR 33363, June 19, 1997; USCG-2002-12471, 67 FR 41332, June 18, 2002; USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35014, June 19, 2008; USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010; USCG-2014-0410, 79 FR 38435, July 7, 2014; USCG-2018-0874, 84 FR 30879, June 28, 2019]
Ohio Department of Health

Evidence-Based Falls Prevention Program Grantee

1 of 2

Prevention and Public Health Fund 2019, effective May 1, 2019

Goals, Strategies, and Activities

The overall purposes of this 3-year sustainability

grant are to:

• Significantly increase the number of older 

adults and older adults with disabilities at 

risk for falls who participate in evidencebased community programs to reduce 

falls and falls risks; and

• Implement innovative funding 

arrangements to support the proposed 

programs, while embedding the 

programs into an integrated, sustainable 

program network. 

The Ohio Department of Health (ODH) and its 

partners will: 

• Increase the number of facilitators and 

participants for the Stepping On program 

and work toward statewide availability 

and reporting for program outcomes;

• Categorize availability and increase 

utilization of existing fall prevention 

programs including Matter of Balance, Tai 

Ji Quan: Moving for Better Balance, and 

Tai Chi for Arthritis;

• Upgrade the Ohio Department of Aging’s 

Workshop Wizard platform to identify 

and track available fall prevention

programs, creating a referral database; 

and

• Create financial sustainability by 

embedding programs within community 

service agencies and health systems, and 

engaging insurers on reimbursement 

policies.

Proposed Interventions

• Matter of Balance

• Stepping On

• Tai Ji Quan: Moving for Better Balance

• Tai Chi for Arthritis

Partnerships

To achieve the goals of the grant ODH will 

collaborate with the following key partners:

• 10 Area Agencies on Aging across 11 

regions

• TriHealth

• Summa Health

• Ohio Health

• Mercy Medical Center- Trauma Services

• Premier Health- Miami Valley Hospital

• Ohio Older Adult Falls Coalition

• Summit County Public Health

• Youngstown State University
2 of 2

Prevention and Public Health Fund 2019, effective May 1, 2019

• People Working Cooperatively

• Dayton Life Enrichment Center

• Holmes County General Health District

Anticipated Results 

The ODH and its partners propose to achieve the 

following results: 

• Pilot two Area Agencies on Aging as 

regionalized network hubs to refer from 

health systems to community fall 

prevention programs;

• Engage 1,200 participants in Stepping On; 

6,552 participants in Matter of Balance; 

1,200 Participants in Tai Ji Quan: Moving 

for Better Balance; and, 600 participants 

in Tai Chi for Arthritis;

• Engage two health systems to integrate 

fall risk assessments;

• Upgrade the statewide program database 

to include additional fall prevention 

programs;

• Engage four health insurers to offer 

coverage for programs; and

• Embed Stepping On classes into 20 health 

systems or community organizations. 

Contact:

Sara Morman, Health Planning Administrator 2

Ohio Department of health

Sara.Morman@odh.ohio.gov

For more information: 

Administration for Community Living 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Washington, DC 20201

http://www.acl.gov