alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16362]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN128-1b; FRL-6713-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revised opacity limits for three 
casting complexes at ALCOA Warrick Operations, which were submitted by 
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) on January 
13, 2000 as amendments to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). ALCOA 
Warrick Operations is a primary aluminum smelter located in Newburgh, 
Indiana. The revised limits allow higher opacity emissions during 
fluxing operations at three casting complexes. This action does not 
reverse applicable mass emissions limits.

DATES: EPA must receive written comments by August 4, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You should mail written comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, 
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    You may inspect copies of the State submittal and EPA's analysis of 
it at: Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Pohlman, Environmental 
Scientist, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-3299.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' are used we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking today?
II. Where can I find more information about this proposal and the 
corresponding direct final rule?

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    We are proposing to approve revised opacity limits for three 
casting complexes at ALCOA Warrick Operations, which were submitted by 
IDEM on January 13, 2000. The revised limits allow for higher opacity 
emissions during fluxing operations at three casting complexes.

II. Where Can I Find More Information About This Proposal and the 
Corresponding Direct Final Rule?

    For additional information see the direct final rule published in 
the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: May 31, 2000.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 00-16362 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### § 302-17.10 When is an expense considered completed in a specific tax year?

A reimbursement, allowance, or direct payment to a vendor is considered completed in a specific tax year only if the money was actually disbursed to the employee or vendor during the tax year in question.

[FTR Amdt. 2014-01, 79 FR 49645, Aug. 21, 2014. Redesignated at 86 FR 73684, Dec. 28, 2021]
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT 11.1

                                CYBERCASH, INC.

                         (A DEVELOPMENT STAGE COMPANY)

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      PERIOD FROM
                                                                    AUGUST 29, 1994
                                                                    (INCEPTION) TO            YEAR ENDED            YEAR ENDED
                                                                     DECEMBER 31,            DECEMBER 31,          DECEMBER 31,
                                                                         1994                    1995                  1996
                                                                    ---------------          ------------          ------------
<S>                                                                   <C>                    <C>                  <C>
Earnings per share:
Weighted average shares of Common Stock outstanding                      1,450,000              1,450,000            9,585,418
Shares of Series B Preferred Stock and warrants issued
  during the twelve month period prior to the initial
  filing of the Form S-1 (using the treasury stock
  method)                                                                1,679,581              1,679,581               --
Shares of Common Stock issued during the twelve month
  period prior to the initial filing of the S-1 (using
  the treasury method)                                                     111,838                111,838               --
Common equivalent shares from options issued during
  the twelve month period prior to the initial filing
  of the Form S-1 (using the treasury stock method)                        760,655                760,655               --
                                                                      -------------          -------------        -------------
Total                                                                    4,002,074              4,002,074            9,585,418
Loss for the period                                                   $ (1,153,494)          $(10,006,195)        $(26,554,741)
                                                                      -------------          -------------        -------------
Net loss per share                                                    $      (0.29)          $      (2.50)        $      (2.77)
                                                                      =============          =============        =============
</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40492 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CLIFTON EARL BERNARD, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:93-CR-108-1

- - - - - - - - - - February 21, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Clifton Earl Bernard was indicted for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Following two years as a fugitive, Bernard pleaded guilty to that offense. In sentencing Bernard, the district court enhanced his offense level for possession of a fiream. Section 2D1.1(b)(1) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a two-point upward adjustment in the offense level in a drug crime if a dangerous weapon was possessed, "unless it is clearlyNo. 96-40492 - 2 - improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense." § 2D1.1, comment. (n.3); United States v. Mitchell , 31 F.3d 271, 277 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 455 (1994). Although Bernard argues that he had no knowledge of the presence of the gun, he concedes that it was found in the trunk of his car with the cocaine. The district court did not err in applying the enhancement. The district court also did not clearly err in increasing Bernard’s offense level pursuant to § 3C1.1 of the guidelines (obstruction of justice) because he failed to appear in court. United States v. Graves , 5 F.3d 1546, 1555 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 1829 (1994). With respect to his claim that the district court erred in denying him a reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility, Application Note 4 to § 3E1.1 of the guidelines provides that conduct which results in an offense-level enhancement under § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice "ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct" except in "extraordinary cases in which adjustments under both §§ 3C1.1 and 3E1.1 may apply." Given the deferential standard of review applied to acceptance of responsibility findings and the finding that Bernard had obstructed justice, the district court did not err in determining that Bernard was not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Ayala , 47 F.3d 688, 691 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE: ARMANDO AVALOS. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00369

- CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 1

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20120C00978 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO OR DERED THIS 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

08/23

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 23 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL
#### § 302-11.403 What policies must we establish before accepting documentation from an employee for reimbursement of residence transaction expenses?

You must establish policies that will define what documentation is acceptable from an employee when requesting reimbursement of residence transaction expenses.
#### § 50-205.5 Inspections by State agency.

Inspections shall be conducted by the State agency with whom an agreement has been made under this part in order to determine the extent of compliance by Government contractors subject to the Act (as determined by the Department of Labor) with the safety and health provisions interpreted or applied in part 50-204 of this chapter. Inspectors of the State agency shall be considered authorized representatives of the Secretary of Labor in making inspections including the examining of the records of the Government contractor maintained under §§ 50-201.501 and 50-201.502 of this chapter. Inspections shall be made upon request of the Department of Labor or concurrently with inspections made to ascertain the compliance by employers with State safety and health requirements.
#### § 102-75.870 Who is responsible for enforcing compliance with the terms and conditions of the port facility conveyance?

DOT is responsible for enforcing compliance with the terms and conditions of conveyance, including reforming, correcting, or amending any instrument of conveyance; granting releases; and taking any necessary actions to recapture the property following the provisions of 40 U.S.C. 554(f). Any of these actions are subject to the approval of the head of the disposal agency. DOT must notify the head of the disposal agency of its intent to take any proposed action, identify the property affected, and describe in detail the proposed action, including the reasons for the proposed action.
379P15

#### State v. Jesus Rafael Rodriguez

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Notice of Appeal (COAP15-794)

1. Dismissed *ex mero motu*

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for PDR

*2.*Denied
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Adam M. Moskowitz

Joseph M. Kaye

THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC

3250 Mary Street, Suite 202

Coconut Grove, FL 33133

Telephone: (305) 740-1423

Service@moskowitz-law.com

David Boies

(Pro Hac Vice)

Stephen Neal Zack

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP

333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504

100 SE 2nd St., Suite 2800, Miami, FL 33131

 Southern District of Florida

EDWIN GARRISON, et al., on behalf of themselves 

and all others similarly situated

22-CV-23753-KMM

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al.,

SOLOMID CORPORATION, 

d/b/a TEAM SOLOMID, TSM, and/or TSM FTX 

Registered Agent: VIVIAN VO 

5340 ALLA ROAD, SUITE 100 

LOS ANGELES, CA 90066

May 15, 2023 s/ Lisa I. Streets

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/15/2023 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

22-CV-23753-KMM 0.00 Print Save As... Reset

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/15/2023 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 15

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-33094, 333-65968, 333-97249, 333-103768, 333-107727,
333-149828, 333-155527, 333-170716, 333-175852 and 333-184558) and form F-3 (No. 333-182769) of National Grid plc of our report dated May 20, 2015 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting, which appears in this Form 20-F.



|                              
|------------------------------
|                              
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|London, UK                    
|June 5, 2015
## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-94,940-01 SHANTA RENCHIE, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION F OR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US

CAUSE NO. 1537886-A IN THE 337 T H DISTRICT COURT F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . Y E A R

Y , J ., concurred.



### O P I N I O N Applicant pleaded g uilty to of delivery of a controlled substance and was sentenced pursuant to Section 12.44(a) of the Tex as Penal Code to ninety d ay s’ imprisonment in county jail. Applicant f iled this application for writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the distri c t c l e r k forwarded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant c ontends that she was deni e d d u e p r o cess and that h e r plea was involuntary because she did not know of the bad acts of the officer who implicated her in this alleg ed offense. The State and the trial court a g ree that the presumptively false evidence used to justify the arrest of Applicant was material, and that h er p lea was involuntary

. Ex parte Mathews, 638 S.W .3d 685 ( Tex

.Crim. App. 2022); Ex p arte Coty , 4 18 S.W .3d 597 (Tex

. Crim. App. 2014). The State and the trial

court both recommend g r anting relief. W e ag ree. Applicant is entitled to relief. Relief is g ranted. Brady v . United States , 397 U.S. 7 42 (1970). The judg ment in Cause No. 153788601010 in the 3 37 th J udicial District Court of Harris Cou n t y i s set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the Harris County Sheriff to answer the charg es as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue a

ny n ecessary bench warrant within 1 0 day s after the mandate of this Court issues. Copies of this o p i n i o n s h a l l b e s e n t t o t he Tex as Department of Criminal J u stice–Correctional I nstitutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: AUGUST 23, 2023 Do Not Publish
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6945

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. ANGEL MANUEL GONZALEZ, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00007-JPB-JES-3; 3:08-cv-00125- JPB-JES)

Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 26, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angel Manuel Gonzalez, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorneys, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Angel Manuel Gonzalez seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gonzalez 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 10-11026.

#### Young *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 11-8393.

#### Rodriguez *v.*Graham, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Wyeth (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2006 (the Report), I, Kenneth J. Martin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The 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 results of operations of the Company.







Dated: November 6, 2006





By:

/s/    Kenneth J. MartinKenneth J. Martin Chief Financial Officer and Vice Chairman
No. 11-9214.

#### McCarthy *v.*Sosnick et al.

Sup. Ct. Mich. Certiorari denied.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ZENEIDA CENTENO,

Appellant,

v.

TOWER HILL SELECT INS. CO.,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-3838

[February 11, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Nicholas Richard Lopane, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

CACE17005382.

Melissa A. Giasi and Erin M. Berger of Giasi Law, P.A., Tampa, for 

appellant.

Todd L. Wallen of Wallen Kelley, Coral Gables, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, CONNER, and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT
      10.5**





**SUMMARY
      OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS**


**OF
      2006 MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN**








The
      following is a summary of the Company’s incentive compensation plan for fiscal
      year 2006. Executives are eligible to receive the indicated percentages of
      base
      compensation upon achieving certain pre-tax profit targets. Incentive payments,
      if any, therefore will be determined based on the Company’s actual financial
      performance for the fiscal year ending December 30, 2006 as measured against
      pre-determined performance objectives based on the Company’s achievement of its
      pre-tax profit plan.





Based
      on
      position held, executives have been assigned a Targeted Incentive amount of
      fifty percent or eighty percent of base compensation correlated to a specific
      level of the Company’s pre-tax profit plan. Potential incentive payments range
      from zero percent to a maximum of one hundred percent of an executive’s base
      compensation depending on position held. The incentive compensation plan
      provides that an aggregate amount of no more than thirty percent of pre-tax
      profit may be paid as incentive compensation to executives and other
      non-executive employees participating in the incentive compensation
      plan.
No. 10-11146.

#### Cantly *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 105-68.820 How much time do I have to contest a proposed debarment? ( a ) As a respondent you or your representative must either send, or make arrangements to appear and present, the information and argument to the debarring official within 30 days after you receive the Notice of Proposed Debarment.
( b ) We consider the Notice of Proposed Debarment to be received by you— ( 1 ) When delivered, if we mail the notice to the last known street address, or five days after we send it if the letter is undeliverable;
( 2 ) When sent, if we send the notice by facsimile or five days after we send it if the facsimile is undeliverable; or
( 3 ) When delivered, if we send the notice by e-mail or five days after we send it if the e-mail is undeliverable.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7434

RONALD BRUNT, a/k/a Ronald Brount,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOHN B. TAYLOR, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-00-730)

Submitted: December 21, 2001 Decided: January 14, 2002

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Brunt, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate

judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).

2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Brunt appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2001).* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate

judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Brunt v. Taylor, No. CA-00-730

(E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED