alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16840]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC00-98-001]


Commonwealth Edison Company; Notice of Filing

June 28, 2000.
    Take notice that on June 20, 2000, Commonwealth Edison Company 
(ComEd) tendered for filing an amendment to the application it filed in 
this proceeding on May 31, 2000.
    ComEd states that it has, by mail, served a copy of the amendment 
on the Illinois Commerce Commission and on other identified entities.
    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 July 11, 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).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16840 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.20A 
Schedule of Named Executive Officers Party to Change of Control Employment Agreement (BE4 and Higher Version without gross-up or window period - current) 
(As of December 31, 2016) 
John D. Buchanan
FORM 5. Petition for Review/Notice of Appeal of an Order or Decision of an Agency, Board, Form 5 

Commission, Office, Bureau, or the US Court of Federal Claims (vaccine appeals only)) March 2023 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR REVIEW/NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) listed below hereby 

appeal(s) the below-noted case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit.

Originating Tribunal (Name of Agency, Board, Commission, Office, Bureau, or Court

whose decision is being appealed): __________________________________________ 

Case number being appealed: ________________________________________________ 

Case title being appealed: ________________________________________________ 

Date of final decision or order being appealed: ______________________________ 

Date decision or order was received: ______________________________ 

☐ I have attached a copy of the decision or order being appealed.

List all Petitioners/Appellants (List each party filing this appeal. Do not use “et 

al.” or other abbreviations. Attach continuation pages if necessary.)

Date: Signature: 

 Name: 

 Address: 

 

 

Phone Number: 

Email Address:
S89A0047.

#### JOWERS v. THE STATE.

(382 SE2d 595)

Smith, Justice.

Appellant Shirley Dean Jowers was indicted for the malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault of Willie D. Muff. A jury found her not guilty of malice murder, but did find her guilty of aggravated assault and felony murder. She was sentenced to a term of ten years for the aggravated assault and life imprisonment for the murder. We affirm the conviction and sentence for felony murder and find that the offense of aggravated assault is a lesser included offense of felony murder and merges therewith.1

The appellant and the victim had lived together for nine years and had two children. They were arguing when the appellant stabbed the victim in the chest with a butcher knife.

One of the victim’s brothers testified that prior to the stabbing, the appellant, with butcher knife in hand, said: “You’d better get Willie out of here before I kill him.” Another brother testified that she said: “Get Willie D. out of here or I will stick him again.” The brothers further testified that the appellant initially refused to allow *402anyone to use her car to take the victim for help despite the pleas of the victim and his brothers.

Decided September 8, 1989.

*Clayton Jones, Jr.,*for appellant.

*John R. Parks, District Attorney, Barbara A. Becraft, Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Andrew S. Ree,*for appellee.

The appellant testified that she did not intend to kill the victim and that he was stabbed when they fell during the argument. She denied that she threatened to kill the victim and that she refused to take the victim to the hospital.

The appellant’s motion in limine to prevent the state from introducing any evidence about a $100,000 insurance policy on the victim’s life was denied. The jury heard testimony that the appellant was the sole beneficiary of a $100,000 life insurance policy on the victim’s life.

1. The appellant may not lawfully be convicted and sentenced for felony murder and the underlying felony of aggravated assault. Proof of the felony is essential to support the felony murder conviction, thus, it is a lesser included offense and must be vacated. OCGA § 16-1-6, and see *Addison v. State,*239 Ga. 622 (238 SE2d 411) (1977).

2. Under the facts of this case the trial court did not err in denying the motion in limine regarding the insurance policy nor in charging the jury on malice murder.

3. The evidence was sufficient under *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979) to support the felony murder conviction.

*Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The crime was committed on December 4, 1988. The Stewart County jury returned its verdict of guilty on April 4,1989. Notice of Appeal was filed on April 27,1989. The transcript of evidence was filed on May 23, 1989. The record was docketed in this Court on May 26, 1989. The case was submitted by brief on July 7, 1989.
§ 102-72.75 What are the requirements for obtaining a delegation of lease management authority (contracting officer representative authority) from GSA? An Executive agency may be delegated lease management authority when it— ( a ) Occupies at least 90 percent of the building's GSA-controlled space or has the written concurrence of 100 percent of rent-paying occupants covered under the lease to perform this function; and
( b ) Demonstrates the ability to perform the delegated lease management responsibilities.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

IN RE: UNSEALING OF COURT CASE RECORDS

______________________

2022-160

______________________

In consideration of unsealing court case records pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 25.1(a)(1).

______________________

SUA SPONTE

______________________

 

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Upon further consideration of the court’s August 17, 

2022 Order, the court finds it impracticable at this time to 

continue to proceed with the proposed unsealing of previously-identified cases. Specifically, the court finds that 

there will be insufficient time and considerable, unanticipated administrative difficulty to both the court and to 

counsel in providing an opportunity for counsel and parties 

in the previously-identified cases to permit a physical review of the identified cases by the National Archives and 

Records Administration’s December 31, 2022 deadline for 

the court to complete the accessioning of its remaining paper case records. 
2 IN RE: UNSEALING

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The court’s August 17, 2022 Order is hereby 

RESCINDED in full. Any impacted parties, counsel, and 

other interested parties are excused from any requirement 

to show cause pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 25.1(a)(1). 

Any filed responses to the court’s order are DENIED as 

moot.

(2) The cases identified in the Addendum to the August 17, 2022 Order shall remain under seal until further 

order of the court but without prejudice to a motion to unseal in an identified case consistent with the court’s rules.

(3) The Clerk of Court is directed to accession the cases 

identified in the August 17, 2022 Order Addendum to the 

National Archives and Records Administration for permanent retention under seal.

(4) The Clerk of Court is directed to provide public notice of this order, including electronic notification to all 

members of the bar and mail notification in any cases involving an unrepresented party.

August 23, 2022

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court
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 State

          - [Public Notice 3354] 

# AGENCY:

Department of State. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Egyptian Art at Eton College: Selections from the Myers Museum,” imported from abroad for the temporary exhibition without profit within the United States, are of cultural significance. These objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with a foreign lender. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY from on or about September 25, 2000 to on or about January 21, 2001, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of exhibit objects, contact Paul Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/619-5997). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW, Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. 

Dated: June 23, 2000. 

William B. Bader, 

Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 00-16769 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-08-U
#### B’Nai Israel v. Joseph Garneau, Sr.

Filed June 21, 1895.

No. 5228.

Review: Conflicting Evidence.» Ia this case there is presented solely a question of fact determined by a jury upon the consideration of conflicting evidence. The judgment upon the verdict will not be disturbed under such circumstances.

Error from the district court of Douglas county. Tried below before Doane, J.

*Ambrose & Duffie,*for plaintiff in error. .

*J. W. West*and *Charles Ogden, contra.*

Ryan, C.

The defendant in error sued the plaintiff in error in the county court of Douglas county for rent alleged to be due at the rate of $50 per month. Upon appeal from the judgment of the county court there was a verdict and judgment for $66.65, which was upon the basis of $50 per month. *593In the fall of 1888 a parol lease was made between the parties to this suit, for the use of the building leased for •church purposes. The rate per month was $35. The lessee insists that there was a contract of lease for the term of one year. The lessor contends that there was no fixed term other'than from month to month. The plaintiff in error paid at the rate of $35 per month up to June 1,1889. The evidence adduced by the defendant in error was to the effect that in the early j>art of May of the year just named plaintiff in error, by its agent paid the rent for that month; that this agent was then informed by the agent of the defendant in error that the monthly rental for June and thenceforward would be $50; that the plaintiff in error ■could not have the property at a less rate, and that, upon this proposition being submitted to the assembled members of the plaintiff in error, it was assented to, and that the use of the building afterwards was by virtue of the new agreement as to monthly rentals. The theory in support of which the plaintiff in error introduced its evidence was that the original lease was for the term of one year from October 1,1888, at the rate of $35 a month, payable monthly; that the change to $50 a month was but an arbitrary attempt on the part of Garneau to exact the additional $15 per month, and that this was never assented to by the plaintiff in error. On this theory there is argued the necessity of notice to terminate the original tenancy, and other kindred propositions. By the instructions of the court the law applicable to the theory of each party was fairly stated, and the verdict settled the contested question of fact, approyed as it was by the ruling made upon the motion for a new trial. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"21-1618: RATLIFF v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"GFJFUCutQk\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-18-2022-21-1618-ratliff-v-mcdonough-opinion-21-1618-opinion-2-18-2022_1910728\/\">21-1618: RATLIFF v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-18-2022-21-1618-ratliff-v-mcdonough-opinion-21-1618-opinion-2-18-2022_1910728\/embed\/#?secret=GFJFUCutQk\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-1618: RATLIFF v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"GFJFUCutQk\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: RATLIFF v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-1618 Origin: CAVC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




         We  hereby  consent  to  the   incorporation   by  reference  into  all
Registration Statements on Form 10-K of Stone Street Bancorp, Inc. of our report
dated  January 30, 1999  relating to the  consolidated  balance  sheets of Stone
Street  Bancorp,  Inc. and  subsidiary  as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and the
related consolidated  statements of income,  stockholders' equity and cash flows
for the years then ended,  which  report  appears in the  Company's  1998 annual
report on Form 10-K.


/s/Weir Smith Jones Miller & Elliott
------------------------------------
Weir Smith Jones Miller & Elliott

Statesville, North Carolina
March 29, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      13,222,234
<SECURITIES>                                 8,779,773
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,706,776
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,788,645
<PP&E>                                       8,578,070
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,906,720
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,359,274
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,658,546
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 12,731,033
<COMMON>                                        11,075
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,864,220
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,359,274
<SALES>                                      4,487,173
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,487,173
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,658,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (26,221,910)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (26,221,910)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (26,221,910)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.43)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                            FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                     For the Period Ended December 31, 1999
                             (Dollars in Thousands)
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Financial Statements at December 31, 1999 (unaudited) and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               2
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,027
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (79)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,152
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,174
<PP&E>                                           1,221
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (512)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,349
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,386
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,050
<SALES>                                         11,947
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,947
<CGS>                                            9,237
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,237
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,292
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 139
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    279
<INCOME-TAX>                                        25
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                254
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       254
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.2

COOPERS
& Lybrand



Independent Accountant's Report


To VW Credit, Inc. as servicer under the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement
dated February 29, 1996:


We have examined management's assertion about VW Credit, Inc.'s
compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP") for the ten month period ended
December 31, 1996 included in the accompanying management assertion to
the extent the procedures in such program are applicable. As Program
Step I., four relating to Escrow Accounts, Program Steps III., three
and four relating to Tax, Insurance and Late Payment Penalties,
Program Step V., two, three and four relating to Adjustable Rate
Mortgages and Program Step VII., one relating to Fidelity Bond and
Error and Omissions Policies are not applicable to the servicing
obligations set forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreements, we did
not perform the related procedures. Management is responsible for VW
Credit, Inc.'s compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with the standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about VW
Credit, Inc.'s compliance with the minimum servicing standards and
performing other such procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable
basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on VW Credit, Inc.'s compliance with the minimum
servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that VW Credit, Inc. complied
with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards for the ten month
period ending December 31, 1996 is fairly stated, in all material
respects.


/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
----------------------------


Detroit, Michigan
March 14, 1997