alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16129]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-262-001]


Florida Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Compliance 
Filing

June 21, 2000.
    Take notice that on June 15, 2000, Florida Gas Transmission Company 
(FGT) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, effective March 26, 
2000:

Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 164
Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 165
Third Revised Sheet No. 165A
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 166
Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 168A
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 185

    FGT states that on May 1, 2000, FGT filed in Docket No. RP00-262-
000 (May 1, Filing) to implement provisions of Order No. 637 regarding 
the waiver of the rate ceiling for short-term capacity release 
transactions and the prospective limitations on the availability of the 
Right-of-Refusal (ROFR). Subsequently, on May 31, 2000, the Commission 
issued an order in the referenced docket accepting FGT's May 1 Filing 
subject to conditions and required FGT to file tariff revisions within 
15 days to 1) include the September 30, 2002 expiration date for the 
waiver of the rate ceiling for short-term capacity release 
transactions, 2) clarify the bidding requirements related to certain 
releases, 3) provide for the grandfathering of existing discounted 
long-term contracts with respect to the application of the ROFR, and 4) 
state that electronic information will be provided on FGT's internet 
website. In the instant filing FGT is proposing tariff revisions to 
comply with the Commission's May 31 order.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in 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. 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. 00-16129 Filed 6-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Civ. *No.*11214.

First Appellate District, Division One.

December 7, 1939.]

#### ANNA J. BLACHE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Respondents.

Max H. ■ Margolis, Herbert Chamberlin, E. Max Cohen and Milton A. Krug for Petitioner.

Edward J. Lynch for Respondents.

WARD, J. —

This is a petition to prohibit the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and County of San Francisco from proceeding to adjudge and *741punish petitioner Anna J. Blache for alleged contempt of court in refusing to be sworn by, and give a deposition before, a notary public.

The petition alleges that a subpoena for the taking of a deposition in a maintenance action wherein petitioner was plaintiff was issued and served on petitioner; that she attended at the time and place mentioned therein, but, upon the advice of her attorneys, refused to be sworn or to give testimony. A report by the notary upon such refusal was duly filed, whereupon the respondent court issued an order to petitioner to appear and show cause why she should not be punished for contempt, the court finding in an order subsequently made that petitioner “has been guilty of contumacy of the court and is now in contempt of this court”. A requested provision, however, that the action be dismissed was stricken from the order. In this connection, no order of court was made requiring petitioner to be sworn and perform the omitted acts. Respondent court has filed a demurrer and an answer to the herein petition.

The petition sets forth that the court has threatened and signified an intent to adjudge petitioner guilty of contempt and to dismiss her action against defendants in the suit in connection with which the subpoena was issued. The question of any threat to dismiss the action seems to be moot. The prayer of the petition requests relief from any punishment. During the oral argument respondents indicated that further action was contemplated. Petitioner may still be punished in the future in this proceeding in some other manner. *(Havemeyer*v. *Superior Court,*84 Cal. 327 [24 Pac. 121, 18 Am. St. Rep. 192, 10 L. R. A. 627] ; *Traffic Truck Sales Co.*v. *Justice’s Court,*192 Cal. 377 [220 Pac. 306].)

One of the essentials to the issuance of a writ of prohibition is that the party against whom it is directed is threatening to perform an act in excess of its jurisdiction. We find it necessary, therefore, to grant the present petition instead of awaiting possible *habeas corpus*or *certiorari*proceedings. *(Van Tiger*v. *Superior Court,*7 Cal. (2d) 377 [60 Pac. (2d) 851] ; *Commercial Bank, etc.,*v. *Superior Court,*192 Cal. 395 [220 Pac. 422].) The refusal of a witness to be sworn cannot be punished until an order is made requiring the performance of the complained of, omitted, act. (Sec. 1991, Code Civ. Proc.; *Merrill*v. *Superior Court,*33 Cal. App. 55*742[164 Pac. 340]; *Golden State Co.*v. *Superior*Court, *25*Cal. App. (2d) 176 [76 Pac. (2d) 728].)

It is hereby ordered that respondents’ demurrer be overruled and the petition for a peremptory writ of prohibition be granted.

Peters, P. J., and Goodell, J., *pro tem.,*concurred.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15996]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AZ-040-00-1040-AE]


Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area Advisory Committee; 
Meeting Notice

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION:  Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area Advisory 
Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to announce the next meeting of 
the Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area Advisory Committee 
Meeting. The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to provide informed 
advice to the Safford Field Office Manager on Management of public 
lands in the Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area (RNCA). The 
committee meets as needed, generally between two and four times a year.
    The meeting will take place at the Bureau of Land Management, 
Safford Field Office on September 15, 2000 commencing at 9 a.m. and 
ending at 4 p.m. The meeting's agenda will consist of updates on 
livestock management, transportation system, public affairs, 
monitoring, and Lee Trail Headquarters relocation within the Gila Box 
RNCA. In addition, the meeting will include a update on the National 
Landscape Conservation System as it relates to the Gila Box RNCA. A 
public comment period will be provided from 9:45 a.m. to 10 a.m. for 
the public to address the committee on management of the Gila Box RNCA.

DATES: Meeting will be held on September 15, 2000 starting at 9 a.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Collins, Gila Box NCA Project 
Coordinator, Safford Field Office, 711 14th Avenue, Safford, Arizona 
85546; telephone number (520) 384-4400.

    Dated: June 15, 2000.
William T. Civish,
Field Office Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-15996 Filed 6-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-32-M
0 

0 

l..f) 

'()
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7570

LEROY A. MATTHEWS, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

SOUTH CAROLINA, State of,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(3:12-cv-00619-DCN)

Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leroy A. Matthews, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Leroy A. Matthews, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Matthews has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### § 102-34.330 What is the Federal Fleet Report?

The Federal Fleet Report (FFR) is an annual summary of Federal fleet statistics based upon fleet composition at the end of each fiscal year and vehicle use and cost during the fiscal year. The FFR is compiled by GSA from information submitted by Federal agencies. The FFR is designed to provide essential statistical data for worldwide Federal motor vehicle fleet operations. Review of the report assists Government agencies, including GSA, in evaluating the effectiveness of the operation and management of individual fleets to determine whether vehicles are being utilized properly and to identify high cost areas where fleet expenses can be reduced. The FFR is posted on GSA's Motor Vehicle Management Policy Internet Web site (*http://www.gsa.gov/vehiclepolicy*).
Exhibit








AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
AVANTOR, INC. 2019
EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN
1.    Definitions. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Avantor, Inc. 2019 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”).
2.    Amendment of the Plan. The Plan is hereby amended as follows effective as of November 1, 2019:
(a)    Section 4.1 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“4.1    Stock Reserved; Delivery of Stock. A maximum of 2,000,000 shares of Stock may be purchased under the Plan, of which up to 100,000 shares of Stock may be purchased under the Plan per Option Period (in each case, subject to adjustment in accordance with Section 4.2.1 hereof). Subject to the limitation in the preceding sentence, as determined by the Committee in its sole discretion, any shares of Stock purchased under the Plan may be either newly issued shares, existing treasury shares, or new purchases in the open market.”
* * * * *











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Avantor, Inc. has caused this Amendment No. 1 to be duly executed this 12th day of November, 2019.
	
				
	Attest:
	 
	AVANTOR, INC.

	 
	 
	 
	 

	/s/ Scott K. Baker
	 
	By:
	/s/ Justin Miller

	Scott K. Baker
	 
	Name:
	Justin Miller

	Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel — Corporate
	 
	Title:
	Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
#### § 102-74.110 What asset services must Executive agencies provide?

Executive agencies, upon approval from GSA, must provide asset services such as repairs (in addition to those minor repairs identified in § 102-74.35(a)), alterations, and modernizations for real property assets. For repairs and alterations projects for which the estimated cost exceeds the prospectus threshold, Federal agencies must follow the prospectus submission and approval policy identified in this part and part 102-73 of this chapter.
Ron Cuny, Regional Administrator 

### Mary Fallin Office of the Governor State of Oklahoma March 4, 20 13 United States Environmental Protection Agency Region VI 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75202 Dear Mr. Cuny: In accordance with Section 404(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, I am forwarding an application for authorization of the L ead-Based Paint Renovation , Repair, and Painting Progran1 ofOklahoma. I believe you will find the application contains the provisions necessary to implement an effective Renovation , Repair, and Painting Program. The Oklahoma Depa1tment of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will be the state agency responsibl e for administering the program in Oklahoma. I hereby ce11ify in accordance with Section 404(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act and 40 C.F.R. 

### § 745.324, that in my opinion, and based on the analysis conducted as part of this application, the laws of the State of Oklahoma as described in this application are at least as protective as the Federal program for the training and ce1tification of lead-based paint professionals found at 40 C .F.R . § 745 and provide DEQ with the requisite authority to enforce compliance with such State programs . If you find you require ftnther information , please contact Steven A. Thompson , Executive Director of the DEQ . Thank you for your assistance.

Enclosures cc: Eddie Terrill Steve Thompson Sincerely ,

Mmy Fallin

Govemor

\ '( 1// : C:II'//(If . hli/ 1/

lf,\ < ; • )JIXI.\' I./XI 0/S/if . l /l ,. \/ /IL'f! • I!A./ . 1/IO . If

. l('ffl.IJA'f !/fll\ 1 . 1 "

3/

11 5- /VI/ • (1115} 5! 1·13 1 ! • fo: l \ (I W) 5! f -J.HJ
SERVED: AUGUST 29, 2013

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF EcoSMART TECHNOLOGIES, Inc. FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0714
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2012GL700111) has been assigned to Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, andthe other persons onthe attached Service List.

Ronnie A. ChiefAdministrati Attachment

- Service List' 

## ' •

SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W10001

Kate Barber, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel Great Lakes Region Federal Aviation Administration 2300 EastDevonAvenue, AGL-7 Des Plaines, IL 60018 TEL: 847-294-7862 FAX: 847-294-7498 ONE COPY

Vern Kennedy, ChiefExecutive Officer EcoSMART Technologies, Inc., Respondent 20 Mansell Ct., Ste. 375 Roswell, GA 30076 The Honorable J.E. Sullivan,AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20. U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0714 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
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. NJ00-5-000]

Take notice that on June 6, 2000, Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency tendered for filing a revision to its Open Access Transmission Tariff on file with the Commission. The filed revision adds a new service, Generation to Schedule Imbalance Service, to the services already provided under the tariff.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 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 and protests should be filed on or before June 27, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine 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. 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. 00-15906 Filed 6-22-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### § 102-41.235 May we sell forfeited drug paraphernalia?

No, you must destroy any forfeited drug paraphernalia not needed for transfer or donation and document the destruction as specified in § 102-41.215.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>
                                   THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL DATA
                                   FROM THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED
                                   AS PART OF 360'S 1996 10K
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0001003959
<NAME>                             360  COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,554
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  108,213
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,730
<INVENTORY>                                     35,908
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               228,843
<PP&E>                                       1,499,407
<DEPRECIATION>                                 415,981
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,812,069
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          350,848
<BONDS>                                      1,699,778
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,233
<OTHER-SE>                                     461,267
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,812,069
<SALES>                                         43,146
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,095,872
<CGS>                                          104,327
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   99,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               202,617
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                23,952
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             106,364
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                117,348
<INCOME-TAX>                                    57,829
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             59,519
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    59,519
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.50


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the use in this Registration Statement of AML Communications, Inc.
on Form S-3 (No. 333-82774) of our report, dated February 14, 2002, and Form S-8
(No. 333-51256), dated November 30, 2000, which includes an emphasis paragraph
relating to an uncertainty as to the Company's ability to continue as a going
concern, appearing in the prospectus, which is part of this Registration
Statement, and of our report dated June 7, 2002 relating to the financial
statement schedules appearing elsewhere in this Registration Statement.


/s/ Singer Lewak Greenbaum & Goldstein LLP
-------------------------------------------
SINGER LEWAK GREENBAUM & GOLDSTEIN LLP


Los Angeles, California
June 27, 2002
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAVID MARTIN BEASLEY YOUNG

From Buncombe County

No. 80A14

ORDER

The Court, on its own motion, orders that the parties submit supplemental briefs on the effect of *Montgomery v. Louisiana,*No. 14-280, 2016 WL 280758 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2016, revised Jan. 27, 2016), on the proceedings in this case. The State’s supplemental brief shall be filed no later than thirty days after the date of this order, and defendant’s supplemental brief shall be filed no later than thirty days following the State’s filing.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 28th day of January, 2016.

s/Ervin. J.

For the Court

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this the 29th day of January, 2016.

CHRISTIE SPEIR CAMERON Clerk of the Supreme Court

s/M.C. Hacknev Assistant Clerk
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:AD-related information:

1) Disposition of Comments (no comments)

2) Signed Final Rule Grid
#### § 109-26.501-51 Used vehicles.

Normally, DOE does not purchase or authorize contractors to purchase used motor vehicles. However, the Office of Management and Program Secretarial Officer (PSO) may authorize the purchase of used motor vehicles where justified by special circumstances, *e.g.,* when new motor vehicles are in short supply; motor vehicles are to be used for experimental or test purposes; or motor vehicles are acquired from exchange/sale. The statutory passenger motor vehicle allocation requirements shall apply to any purchase of used passenger motor vehicles except in the case of motor vehicles to be used exclusively for experimental or test purposes.