alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Table 7

SCR cost associated with BOR surplus sales; verification of ES Table 14

BOR cost for 1319 gwh/year of surplus sales Confirmation of ES calculation of

NPV change due to $10 million

Year $/Mwh $MM per year change in lease payment,

(ES, p.36) starting in 2020 (ES, p. 47)

NPV ($MM) $49.8 $60.8

2016 1.71 2.255 0

2017 3.04 4.01 0

2018 4.65 6.133 0

2019 4.65 6.133 0

2020 4.65 6.133 10

2021 4.65 6.133 10

2022 4.65 6.133 10

2023 4.65 6.133 10

2024 4.65 6.133 10

2025 4.65 6.133 10

2026 4.65 6.133 10

2027 4.65 6.133 10

2028 4.65 6.133 10

2029 4.65 6.133 10

2030 4.65 6.133 10

2031 4.65 6.133 10

2032 4.65 6.133 10

2033 4.65 6.133 10

2034 4.65 6.133 10

2035 4.65 6.133 10

2036 4.65 6.133 10

Assumptions: 

NGS capacity factor: 86.0% (ES, p. 32)

BOR share of NGS: 24.3% (NREL, p. 14)

CAP pumping load: 2800 gwh (ES, p. 36)

Discount rate: 7.0% per year (ES, p. 
se payment,

Calculated 2012 NPV; ES number is $60-61 million

(ES, p. 47, Table 14, $7766 - $7705 or $8414 - $8354)
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-21230

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LEROY STRONG,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-524-1

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

October 29, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leroy Strong appeals his conviction and sentence for being a

felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Strong argues that his conviction

under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) must be reversed because it is

unconstitutional to convict a defendant under that statute when

the firearm’s only connection with interstate commerce was that

at some point in the past it crossed state lines. Relying on

Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 857 (2000), and United
No. 01-21230

-2-

States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), Strong argues that this

court’s current interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) violates the

Commerce Clause because such an interpretation would apply to 95%

of the firearms in this country.

 This court has repeatedly rejected constitutional challenges

to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) convictions based on Lopez and Jones,

concluding that the interstate commerce element is satisfied by

the possession of a firearm that was manufactured in a different

state or country. See United States v. Cavazos, 288 F.3d 706,

712 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, (U.S. Oct. 7, 2002) (No. 02-

5348); see also United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518

(5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1150 (2002). Thus,

Strong’s argument fails. The conviction is AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1166 Waivers, reductions and deferrals of regulatory fees. The fees established by §§ 1.1152 through 1.1156 and associated interest charges and penalties may be waived, reduced or deferred in specific instances, on a case-by-case basis, where good cause is shown and where waiver, reduction or deferral of such fees, interest charges and penalties would promote the public interest. Requests to pay fees established by §§ 1.1152 through 1.1156 and associated interest charges and penalties in installments may be granted in accordance with § 1.1914. Requests for waiver, reduction or deferral of regulatory fees for entire categories of payors will not be considered. ( a ) Requests for waiver, reduction or deferral of regulatory fees shall be filed electronically, by submission to the following email address: *regfeerelief@fcc.gov .* All requests for waiver, reduction and deferral shall be acted upon by the Managing Director with the concurrence of the General Counsel. All such requests made pursuant to § 1.1166 may be combined in a single pleading.
( b ) Deferrals of fees, interest, or penalties if granted, will be for a designated period of time not to exceed six months.
( c ) Petitions for waiver of a regulatory fee, interest, or penalties must be accompanied by the required fee, interest, or penalties and FCC Form 159. Submitted fees, interest, or penalties will be returned if a waiver is granted. Waiver requests that do not include the required fees, interest, or penalties or forms will be dismissed unless a request to defer payment due to financial hardship, supported by documentation of the financial hardship, is included in the filing.
( d ) Petitions for reduction of a fee, interest, or penalty must be accompanied by the full fee, interest, or penalty payment and FCC Form 159. Petitions for reduction that do not include the required fees, interest, or penalties or forms will be dismissed unless a request to defer payment due to financial hardship, supported by documentation of the financial hardship, is included in the filing.
( e ) Petitions for waiver of a fee, interest, or penalty based on financial hardship, including bankruptcy, will not be granted, even if otherwise consistent with Commission policy, to the extent that the total regulatory and application fees, interest, or penalties for which waiver is sought exceeds $500,000 in any fiscal year, including regulatory fees due in any fiscal year, but paid prior to the due date. In computing this amount, the amounts owed by an entity and its subsidiaries and other affiliated entities will be aggregated. In cases where the claim of financial hardship is not based on bankruptcy, waiver, partial waiver, or deferral of fees, interest, or penalties above the $500,000 cap may be considered on a case-by-case basis.
[88 FR 63747, Sept. 15, 2023]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YOLVER ESTRADA-MENDOZA, AKA 

Yolber Mendoza Estrada, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-70563 

Agency No. A087-749-566 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2020**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Yolver Estrada-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order (i) dismissing his 

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of 

removal, and (ii) denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

APR 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-70563 

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the decision to deem an 

application abandoned and the denial of a motion to remand. Taggar v. Holder, 

736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for review. 

The agency did not abuse its discretion in deeming Estrada-Mendoza’s 

application for cancellation of removal abandoned, where he did not file the 

application by the deadline imposed by the IJ. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (“If an 

application or document is not filed within the time set by the Immigration Judge, 

the opportunity to file that application or document shall be deemed waived.”); 

Taggar, 736 F.3d at 890. To the extent Estrada-Mendoza contends that ineffective 

assistance of counsel excuses his failure to timely file the application, he did not 

meet the threshold requirements for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel 

set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Reyes v. 

Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 598-99 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding BIA’s denial of a 

motion for failure to comply with the Lozada requirements). 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Estrada-Mendoza’s motion 

to remand, where he has not established prima facie eligibility for cancellation of 

removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 

(9th Cir. 2010) (BIA may deny motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie 

eligibility for relief). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 696 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 696

   To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to extend the 
   deadline for the submission to the Federal Election Commission of 
   campaign reports covering the first quarter of the calendar year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 1999

 Mr. Watkins introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to extend the 
   deadline for the submission to the Federal Election Commission of 
   campaign reports covering the first quarter of the calendar year.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF FIRST QUARTER 
              CAMPAIGN REPORTS TO FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION.

    (a) In General.--Section 304(a) of the Federal Election Campaign 
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)(A)(iii), by inserting after ``except 
        that'' the following: ``the report for the quarter ending March 
        31 shall be filed no later than May 1 and'';
            (2) in paragraph (3)(B)(ii), by striking the period at the 
        end and inserting the following: ``, except that the report for 
        the quarter ending March 31 shall be filed no later than May 
        1.''; and
            (3) in paragraph (4)(A)(i), by inserting after ``except 
        that'' the following: ``the report for the quarter ending March 
        31 shall be filed no later than May 1 and''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to calendar quarters beginning on or after January 
1, 2000.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit (32)



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with this quarterly report of American Greetings Corporation on Form 10-Q as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), each of the undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to his knowledge:



|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 American Greetings Corporation.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|January | 9, 2006
|------- | -------



|                                                                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Zev Weiss                                                                                           
|Zev Weiss Chief Executive Officer (principal executive
officer)                                         
|                                                                                                        
|/s/ Michael J. Merriman, Jr.                                                                            
|Michael J. Merriman, Jr. Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1622]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-00-004]


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: January 28, 2000 at 11:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Agenda for future meeting: none.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Inv. No. 731-TA-863 (Preliminary)(Citric Acid and Sodium Citrate 
from China)--briefing and vote. (The Commission will transmit its 
determination to the Secretary of Commerce on January 31, 2000.)
5. Outstanding action jackets: none.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed 
above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over 
to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission:
    Issued: January 19, 2000.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-1622 Filed 1-19-00; 2:18 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
No. 11-9065.

#### Sones *v.*Lafler, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
5 November 2015

324P15

#### East Town Market, L.P. v. 550 Foods, LLC

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-46)

Denied
79–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–671

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4578, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

JUNE 12, 2000.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 524]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 524, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 4578, the

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations

Act, 2001, under an open rule. The rule provides one hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the

bill. The rule further waives clause 2 of rule XXI (prohibiting unauthorized or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill) against

provisions in the bill except as otherwise specified in the rule. The

rule also waives clause 2(e) of rule XXI (prohibiting non-emergency

designated amendments to be offered to an appropriations bill containing an emergency designation) against amendments offered

during consideration of the bill.

Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the Record

prior to their consideration will be given priority in recognition to

offer their amendments if otherwise consistent with House rules.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone votes

during consideration of the bill, and reduce voting time to five minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a fifteen minute

2

vote. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or

without instructions.

Æ
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 16

- 00321

- CR Roy Gene NEWMAN , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 13

- 2536

- CR

- C The Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 13, 2016
DIS MISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Appellant was sentenced on June 15, 2015. Appellant’s notice of appeal was therefore due on July 15, 2015. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.2(a)(1). Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until May 11,
2016. A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this court’s jurisdiction. Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A late notice of appeal may be considered timely so as to i nvoke our jurisdiction if (1) it is filed in the trial court within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing; (2) a motion for04

- 16

- 00321

- CR

- 2

- extension of time is filed in the court of appeals within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing the notice of ap peal; and (3) the court of appeals grants the motion for extension of time.
T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3. Because appellant did not satisfy these requirements, we ordered him to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. No such r esponse was filed. This appeal is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 1
PER CURIAM Do not publish

1 Additionally, the clerk’s record, which contains a trial court certification stating this is a plea

- bargain case and the defendant has no right of appeal, shows this is a plea bargain case and appellant has no right to appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)(2 ). Thus, even if a timely notice of appeal had been filed, this appeal would be subject to dismissal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d). See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(d).
# Comments on: 20-150: GALLOGLY v. US [ORDER], Nonprecedential
# Comments on: 19-2116: BATCHER v. WILKIE [OPINION], Precedential
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4295 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4295

 To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue certificates of 
                 documentation for 6 dredging vessels.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 1994

 Mrs. Bentley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue certificates of 
                 documentation for 6 dredging vessels.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 1 of the Act of May 28, 1906 (46 App. U.S.C. 292), section 27 
of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), and section 
12106 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation 
may issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement 
for engaging in dredging for each of the following vessels:
            (1) ANNAPOLIS (United States official number 999008).
            (2) CHESAPEAKE (United States official number 999010).
            (3) CONSORT (United States official number 999005).
            (4) CURTIS BAY (United States official number 999007).
            (5) HAMPTON ROADS (United States official number 999009).
            (6) JAMESTOWN (United States official number 999006).

                                 <all>
```
No. 11-63.

#### Shell Petroleum N. V. et al. *v.*Kiobel, Individually and on Behalf of Her Late Husband, Kiobel, et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.0



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Andrea Electronics Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 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 and 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 as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                                          
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 13, 2004 |  | /s/ PAUL E. DONOFRIO                                                     
|                      |  | Paul E. Donofrio Chief Executive Officer and President                   
|                      | 
|                      |  | /s/ CORISA L. GUIFFRE                                                    
|                      |  | Corisa L. Guiffre                                                        
|                      |  | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Corporate Secretary