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

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 130 (Thursday, July 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17004]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-356-000]

El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

June 29, 2000.
    Take notice that on June 26, 2000, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El 
Paso) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff sheets:

Effective March 26, 2000

Third Revised Sheet No. 289
Second Revised Sheet No. 336
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 338
1st Revised Third Revised Sheet No. 339
First Revised Sheet No. 342
Second Revised Sheet No. 346
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 350
Third Revised Sheet No. 350A

Effective June 1, 2000

Second Revised Sheet No. 308

    El Paso states that the tariff sheets are being submitted, pursuant 
to Order No. 637, to (i) remove the rate ceiling for capacity releases 
of less than one year, (ii) modify El Paso's right-of-first-refusal 
provisions applicable to long term firm contracts at the maximum rate, 
and (iii) revise the electronic bulletin board description to refer to 
El Paso's Internet Web site.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with 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. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-17004 Filed 7-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
§ 64.6030 Inmate Calling Services interim rate caps. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 77364 , Sept. 20, 2024.
( a ) For all Jails with Average Daily Populations of less than 1,000 Inmates, no Provider shall charge a rate for interstate Collect Calling, Debit Calling, Prepaid Calling, or Prepaid Collect Calling in excess of $0.21 per minute.
( b ) For all Jails with Average Daily Populations of Inmates of 1,000 or greater, no Provider shall charge a Provider-Related Rate Component for interstate Collect Calling, Debit Calling, Prepaid Calling, or Prepaid Collect Calling in excess of $0.14 per minute.
( c ) For all Prisons, no Provider shall charge a Provider-Related Rate Component for interstate Collect Calling, Debit Calling, Prepaid Calling, or Prepaid Collect Calling in excess of $0.12 per minute.
( d ) For all Jails with Average Daily Populations of Inmates of 1,000 or greater, and for all Prisons, Providers may recover the applicable Facility-Related Rate Component as follows: ( 1 ) Providers subject to an obligation to pay Site Commissions by state statutes or laws and regulations that are adopted pursuant to state administrative procedure statutes where there is notice and an opportunity for public comment such as by a state public utility commission or similar regulatory body with jurisdiction to establish inmate calling services rates, terms, and conditions and that operate independently of the contracting process between Correctional Institutions and Providers, may recover the full amount of such payments through the Legally Mandated Facility Rate Component subject to the limitation that the total rate (Provider-Related Rate Component plus Facility-Related Rate Component) does not exceed $0.21 per minute.
( 2 ) Providers that pay Site Commissions pursuant to a contract with the Jail or Prison may recover up to $0.02 per minute through the Contractually Prescribed Facility Rate Component except where the Provider's total Contractually Prescribed Facility Rate Component results in a lower per-minute rate than $0.02 per minute of use. In that case, the Provider's Contractually Prescribed Facility Rate Component is limited to the actual amount of its per-minute Site Commission payment up to a maximum of $0.02 per minute. Providers shall calculate their Contractually Prescribed Facility Rate Component to three decimal places.
( e ) No Provider shall charge, in any Prison or Jail it serves, a per-minute rate for an International Call in excess of the applicable interstate rate cap set forth in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this section plus the average amount that the provider paid its underlying international service providers for calls to the International Destination of that call, on a per-minute basis. A Provider shall determine the average amount paid for calls to each International Destination for each calendar quarter and shall adjust its maximum rates based on such determination within one month of the end of each calendar quarter.
[86 FR 40731, July 28, 2021]
§ 32.4000 Current accounts and notes payable. ( a ) This account shall include: ( 1 ) All amounts currently due to others for recurring trade obligations, and not provided for in other accounts, such as those for traffic settlements, material and supplies, repairs to telecommunications plant, matured rents, and interest payable under monthly settlements on short-term loans, advances, and open accounts. It shall also include amounts of taxes payable that have been withheld from employees' salaries.
( 2 ) Accounts payable arising from sharing of revenues.
( 3 ) The face amount of notes, drafts, and other evidences of indebtedness issued or assumed by the company (except interest coupons) which are payable on demand or not more than one year or less from date of issue.
( b ) If any part of an obligation, otherwise includable in this account matures more than one year from date of issue, it shall be included in Account 4200, Long term debt and funded debt, or other appropriate account.
( c ) The records supporting the entries to this account shall be kept so that the company can furnish complete details as to each note, when it is issued, the consideration received, and when it is payable.
( d ) Subsidiary record categories shall be maintained for this account in order that the company may separately report the amounts contained herein that relate to nonaffiliates and affiliates. Such subsidiary record categories shall be reported as required by part 43 of this chapter.
[67 FR 5688, Feb. 6, 2002]
[No. 3109.]

#### J. C. Johnson *v.*The State.

Practice—Statement op Facts.—In this ease the trial court of Us own motion entered up an order granting ten days after adjournment for the preparation of a statement of facts. Such statement of facts was prepared within the ten days and presented to the judge for his approval. It was, however, disapproved by him, and he prepared no statement himself in lieu thereof. This action of the court is alone relied upon for reversal. *Meld,*that, as the appellant was not in default, the error necessitates the reversal of the judgment.

Appeal from the District Court of Hopkins. Tried below before the Hon. Gf. J. Clark.

The indictment against the appellant was for arson, and charged him with the burning of J. A. Weaver’s gin house, in Hopkins county, Texas, on the twenty-fourth day of December, 1883. Trial resulted in conviction, and the punishment was affixed at a term of five years in the penitentiary.

*W. P. Leach,*for the appellant.

*373
      *J. H. Burts,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Hurt, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of arson. An order that the statement of facts be filed in ten days after adjournment was made by the court upon its own motion. Court adjourned on March 29, 1884 A statement of the facts was prepared and presented to the judge for his approval within the ten days, but was disapproved by the judge, and no statement was prepared and approved by him. This is the only ground relied upon for a reversal of the judgment.

There being no fault on the part of the appellant in regard to this matter, the judgment must be reversed. (See this subject discussed in the cases of *Ruston*v. *The State,*15 Texas Ct. App., 324; and *Ruston*v. *The State,*Id., 336.)

Assuming that which purports to be a statement of facts to be correct, we believe it to be our duty to make these observations:

1. Giving to the evidence of the State full credence, and viewing it in the most favorable light to the prosecution, still we do not think it sufficient to sustain the conviction.

2. Every fact of the slightest materiality criminating the defendant was, we think, satisfactorily explained by his witnesses, and made to harmonize with his innocence.

For the error above indicated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded,

*Beversed and remanded.*

Opinion delivered May 31, 1884.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7975

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GARY C. CROUCH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR91-397, CA-94-3237-3-19BC, CR-91-310)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 30, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary C. Crouch, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Crouch, Nos. CR-91-397; CR-91-310; CA-94-3237-3-19BC (D.S.C. Oct.

27, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
792 A.2d 1240

#### IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS H. EVERETT, III, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 000331984).

March 27, 2002.

ORDER

THOMAS H. EVERETT, III, of CALDWELL, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1984, having tendered his consent to disbarment as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that THOMAS H. EVERETT, III, is disbarred by consent, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that he be permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by THOMAS H. EVERETT, III, pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6 shall be restrained from disbursement except on application to this Court for good cause shown and shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court, who is directed to deposit the funds in the Superior Court Trust Fund pending further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further

*142ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate- administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

HENRY LAMAR DAVIS, JR.

, Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 15

- 4138

STATE O F FLORIDA

, Appellee

. ________________________________/

Opinion filed June 3, 2016

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court f or Putnam County

, Patti A. Christensen , Judge.

Henry Lamar Davis, Jr., Daytona Beach, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent

Tripp, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Henry Lamar Davis, Jr.

, app eals the summary denial of his R ule 3.850 motion for

postconviction relief. Davis filed an initial R ule 3.850 motion in June of 2014. That motion

was denied on November 18, 2014, and Davis did not appeal the denial. Six months later

,

Davis filed an other R ule 3.850 motion , which was also denied

. 1

1 Davis’s initial brief is really no more than yet another Rule 3.850 motion alleging the same forty

- one grounds for relief. Twenty

- four of these claims u ntimely challenged the trial court's 2009 and 2011 judgments.2 The trial court denied the motion in part as impermissibly successive, correctly

noting that Davis neither labeled the motion as successive nor justif ied the failure to raise

the asserted grounds in his pri or motion . T he trial court failed , however, to attach a copy

of the prior motions and orders in support of its ruling as required by Florida Rule of

C riminal Procedure 3.850(h)(2). The S tate concedes this was error. We reverse and

remand for attachment of the prior R ule 3.850 motion and the resulting order as it relates

to Davis’ s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel in his v iolation

- of

- p robation

cases. We affirm as to the claims related to the original proceedings and alleging trial

court error

.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERS ED IN PART ; AND REMANDED.

SAWAYA , COHEN and WALLIS , JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                          18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                          AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Annual Report of Softwall Equipment
Corporation, on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Randall Peterson, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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 result of operations of
     the Company.


Date: August 18, 2003         /S/ Randall Peterson
                              -----------------------------------------
                              Randall Peterson, Chief Executive Officer
                              and Principle Accounting Officer
No. 10-10791.

#### Jackson *v.*Gonzalez et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Cite as: Opinion No. 95-023 (July 7, 1995)

(unpublished)

NATURAL RESOURCES ) FISHING ) CRIMINAL PROHIBITION OF

MONOFILIMENT GILL NETS DOES NOT APPLY TO MULTIFILIMENT

NYLON NETS

July 7, 1995

The Honorable John Griffin

Secretary of Natural Resources

You have requested our opinion concerning the scope of §4-710(d)(1) of the Natural

Resources Article, Maryland Code, which prohibits the use of "any monofiliment gill net webbing of

any description to catch fish." Specifically, your question is whether this prohibition extends to a

relatively new type of gill net made from twisted or braided nylon filaments.

In a recent memorandum of advice (copy attached), Assistant Attorney General Thomas A.

Deming, Counsel to the Department of Natural Resources, advised that §4-710(d)(1), a criminal

prohibition on the use of "monofilament" gill nets, could not sustain a prosecution against someone

using a multifiliment gill net. 

We have carefully reviewed the matter and agree with Mr. Deming's analysis and conclusion.

Although the use of a multifiliment nylon net may result in a harm comparable to that resulting in the

enactment of §4-710(d)(1), this criminal statute is so specific that it simply 
cannot be construed beyond its terms. The General Assembly may wish to consider amending the

statute to extend its reach to the new type of net.

J. Joseph Curran, Jr.

Attorney General

Jack Schwartz

Chief Counsel

 Opinions & Advice
#### § 5.123 Inspection of stations.

All stations and records of stations in the authorized under this part shall be made available for inspection at any time while the station is in operation or shall be made available for inspection upon reasonable request of an authorized representative of the Commission.

[78 FR 25162, Apr. 29, 2013]
Exhibit 32.1

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 E-LOAN, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Mark E. Lefanowicz,
as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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), as applicable 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.

/s/ Mark E. Lefanowicz Mark E. Lefanowicz
President and Chief Executive Officer

May 10, 2005



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to E-LOAN, Inc. and will be retained by E-LOAN, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
STATE OF LOUISIANA 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

CAMSOFT DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 

VERSUS 

NO. 2022 CW 1210 

SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS SUPPLY, 

INC. AND ACTIVE SOLUTIONS, 

LLC 

JANUARY 18, 2024 

In Re: 

BEFORE: 

Cams oft Data Systems, Inc., applying 

writs, 19th Judicial District Court, 

Baton Rouge, No. 582741. 

McCLENDON, HOLDRIDGE, AND GREENE, JJ. 

for supervisory 

Parish of East 

REFERRAL TO APPEAL RECALLED; WRIT DENIED. The criteria set 

forth in Berlitz Construction Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of 

New Iberia, Inc., 396 So.2d 878 (La. 1981) (per curiam), are not 

met. 

PMc 

GH 

Greene, J., dissents and would grant the writ. I would 

reverse the trial court's October 7, 2022 judgment granting the 

motion for partial summary judgment filed by defendants, MMR 

Group, Inc., MMR Offshore Services, Inc. and MMR Constructors, 

Inc. d/b/a MMR Communications, seeking to dismiss the lost 

business value damages claim of plaintiff, Camsoft Data Systems, 

Inc., and deny the motion. Only documents actually filed in 

support of or in opposition to the motion for summary judgment 

may be considered by the court on a motion for summary 

judgment. La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(0) (2) & Comments 2015, 

comment (k); Alvin Fairburn & Associates, LLC v. Harris, 2020-

12 9 0 (La. App. 1st Cir. 10 / 18 / 21) , 2 0 21 WL 4 8 4 3 5 8 4 , * 3- 4 

(unpublished). Thus, we may not rely upon the arguments and 

exhibits that defendants, MMR Group, Inc., MMR Offshore 

Services, Inc. and MMR Constructors, Inc. d/b/a MMR 

Communications, attempted to adopt by reference from the motion 

for partial summary judgment and supporting memorandum filed by 

defendants, Dell, Inc. and Dell Marketing, L.P. Defendants, MMR 

Group, Inc., MMR Offshore Services, Inc. and MMR Constructors, 

Inc. d/b/a MMR Communications, made no arguments and did not 

attach any exhibits to their motion for partial summary 

judgment. Thus, they have failed to point out to the court the 

absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to 

Camsoft Data System, Inc.'s claim for lost business value 

damages. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT 

FOR THE COURT
No. 11-8844.

#### Leavitt *v.*Arave, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 2.1201 Purpose. ( a ) In order to carry out its responsibilities under the Communications Act and the various treaties and international regulations, and in order to promote efficient use of the radio spectrum, the Commission has developed technical standards for radio frequency equipment. The technical standards applicable to individual types of equipment are found in that part of the rules governing the service wherein the equipment is to be operated. In addition to the technical standards, the rules governing the service may require that such equipment receive an equipment authorization from the Commission as a prerequisite for marketing and importing this equipment into the U.S.A. The marketing rules, § 2.801 *et seq.,* were adopted pursuant to the authority in section 302 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 302).
( b ) The rules in this subpart set out the conditions under which radio frequency devices as defined in § 2.801 that are capable of causing harmful interference to radio communications may be imported into the U.S.A.
( c ) Nothing in this section prevents importers from shipping goods into foreign trade zones or Customs bonded warehouses, such as is the prescribed procedure under § 2.1204(a)(5). Radio frequency devices capable of causing harmful interference, however, cannot be withdrawn from these areas except in accordance with the provisions of this section.
[41 FR 25904, June 23, 1976, as amended at 54 FR 17714, Apr. 25, 1989; 56 FR 26619, June 10, 1991; 57 FR 38286, Aug. 24, 1992; 82 FR 50829, Nov. 2, 2017]
§ 22.813 Technical channel pair assignment criteria. The rules in this section establish technical assignment criteria for the channel pairs listed in § 22.805. These criteria are intended to provide substantial service volumes over areas that have significant local and regional general aviation activity, while maintaining the continuous nationwide in-route coverage of the original geographical layout. ( a ) *Distance separation for co-channel ground stations.* The FCC may grant an application requesting assignment of a communication channel pair to a proposed ground transmitter only if the proposed antenna location is at least 800 kilometers (497 miles) from the antenna location of the nearest co-channel ground transmitter in the United States, its territories and possessions; and 1000 kilometers (621 miles) from the antenna location of the nearest co-channel ground transmitter in Canada.
( b ) *Dispersion.* The FCC may grant an application requesting assignment of a communication channel pair to a proposed ground transmitter only if there are no more than five different communication channel pairs already assigned to ground transmitters with antenna locations within a 320 kilometer (199 mile) radius of the proposed antenna location.
No. 11-9379.

#### Fennell *v.*California Republican Party et al.

Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
#### § 30.103 License term.

Initial authorizations will have a term not to exceed ten years from the date of initial issuance or renewal.