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

Submitted to the

United States Congress

by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Twenty-sixth Report to Congress on Progress Made in

Licensing and Constructing the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline

August 2018
- 2 -

Twenty-sixth Report to Congress on the Alaska Pipeline

I. Executive Summary

The Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (Commission) submits this report 

pursuant to section 1810 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005).

1 Section 1810 

of EPAct 2005 requires that the Commission submit to Congress semi-annual reports 

describing the progress made in licensing and constructing an Alaska natural gas pipeline 

and any impediments thereto.

This report provides an update from the Commission’s Twenty-fifth Report, 

submitted in February 2018. 

II. Status Report

As stated in previous reports, at TransCanada Alaska Company, LLC’s request,

the Commission terminated the prefile review process for the Alaska Pipeline Project in 

Docket No. PF09-11-000. The Commission staff has no further progress to report.

 1 P.L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005), 42 U.S.C § 15801 et seq.
Before the Second Division,

June 10, 1964

No. 68624.

protests 63/3838, etc. (New York).

#### Crown Curtis Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of steel bandsaws similiar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(50 Cust. Ct. 41, C.D. 2386), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.17

ENDORSED
FILED in the Office of the
Secretary of State of Texas
March 16, 2001
Corporations Section

                             ARTICLES OF CONVERSION

                                       OF

                        INSPIRATION MEDIA OF TEXAS, INC.


        Inspiration Media of Texas, Inc., a Texas corporation (the
"Corporation"), does hereby certify the following in accordance with Article
5.18 of the Texas Business Corporation Act:

        1. The name of the Corporation is "Inspiration Media of Texas, Inc." The
Corporation is a Texas corporation. The Corporation is the converting entity.

        2. The name of the Texas limited liability company into which the
Corporation is being converted (the "LLC") is "Inspiration Media of Texas, LLC".
The LLC is the converted entity.

        3. A Plan of Conversion has been approved by the unanimous vote of all
of the directors and all of the stockholders of the Corporation in accordance
with the provisions of Article 5.17 of the Texas Business Corporation Act.

        4. An executed Plan of Conversion is on file at the principal place of
business of the Corporation at 4880 Santa Rosa Road, Suite 300, Camarillo, CA
93012, and an executed Plan of Conversion will be on file, from and after the
conversion, at the principal place of business of the LLC at 4880 Santa Rosa
Road, Suite 300, Camarillo, CA 93012.

        5. A copy of the Plan of Conversion will be furnished by the Corporation
(prior to the conversion) or the LLC (after the conversion), on written request
and without cost, to any owner of either the Corporation or the LLC.

        6. The total number of outstanding shares of each class of the
Corporation are as follows:

<TABLE>
               CLASS                                      NUMBER OF SHARES
               -----                                      ----------------
               <S>                                        <C>
               Common                                            1,000
</TABLE>

        7. One hundred percent (100%) of the outstanding shares of the
Corporation voted



                                        1
<PAGE>   2

for the Plan of Conversion.

        8. These Articles of Conversion shall become effective on March 9, 2001.


        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed these Articles of
Conversion of Inspiration Media of Texas, Inc. effective as of March 9, 2001.


                                            INSPIRATION MEDIA OF TEXAS, INC.,
                                            a Texas Corporation


                                            By: /s/ Jonathan L. Block
                                                --------------------------------
                                                   Jonathan L. Block,
                                                   Vice President



                                        2
EXHIBIT 4.8

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



Tele Centro Oeste Celular Participacoes S.A.
SCN Q.02 Bloco C, 226 - 6(degree)andar
Brasilia- DF

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent  to the use in this  Annual  Report on Form 20-F of our report  dated
February 14, 2003,  relating to the  consolidated  financial  statements of Tele
Centro Oeste Celular  Participacoes S.A., prepared in conformity with accounting
principles  generally  accepted in Brazil for the year ended  December 31, 2002,
which appears in such Annual Report.

                  Ernst and Young Auditores Independentes S.C.

                             /s/ Luiz Carlos Nannini
                                     Partner


Brasilia, Brazil

June 25, 2003
<PAGE>


                                   EXHIBIT 4.5

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                          CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT

         THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT,  dated September
25,  2003  (the  "First   Amendment"),   is  by  and  among  Brent  Haines  (the
"Consultant"),  and Reality Wireless  Networks,  Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
"Client").

                                    RECITALS

         A. The  Consultant  and the Client  entered into a Consulting  Services
Agreement  dated July 5, 2003,  a copy of which is attached  hereto as Exhibit A
(the  "Agreement"),  pursuant to which the Consultant  agreed to provide certain
consulting services to the Client.

         B.  Client  and  Consultant  wish to amend  Sections  2 and 6(a) of the
Agreement to extend the  duration of the  Agreement  and provide for  additional
consideration in exchange for additional consulting services.

                                    AGREEMENT

         NOW,  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of the  foregoing,  and the mutual
agreements, representations,  warranties and covenants contained herein, and for
other  good  and  valuable   consideration   the  receipt  of  which  is  hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

A.       Section 2 of the  Agreement  shall be deleted in its entirety and shall
         read as follows:

"2.      Consideration.

         Client agrees to pay Consultant,  as his fee and as  consideration  for
services  provided,  Seven  Million Five Hundred  Twenty  Eight  Thousand  Three
Hundred  Thirty  Four  (7,528,334)  shares of  common  stock of the  Client.  By
amendment  dated  September  25,  2003,  Client  agrees  to  pay  Consultant  an
additional 500,000 shares of common stock of the Client."

B.       Section  6(a) of the  Agreement  shall be deleted in its  entirety  and
         shall read as follows:

"(a) Term.

This  Agreement  shall  become  effective  on the  date  appearing  next  to the
signatures below and terminate twelve (12) months  thereafter.  Unless otherwise
agreed  upon in writing by  Consultant  and  Client,  this  Agreement  shall not
automatically be renewed beyond its Term."


EXECUTED on the date first set forth above.

                                CLIENT:

                                REALITY WIRELESS NETWORKS, INC.




                                By: _________________________
                                    Victor Romero - President






                                       23
<PAGE>

                                            CONSULTANT:



                                            By:
                                                ------------------------------
                                                Name: Brent Haines





                                       24
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             353
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,976
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,994)
<INVENTORY>                                     20,712
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,200
<PP&E>                                          49,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                (26,163)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,631
<BONDS>                                            932
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              296
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,974
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    87,533
<SALES>                                         61,289
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,793
<CGS>                                           46,101
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,422
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   117
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (658)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,505)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,505)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,505)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.5)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.5)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
                    REGARDING ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

New Century Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2005-4
2005-4 Asset-Backed Notes

            I, Kevin Cloyd, hereby certify that I am a duly appointed Executive
Vice President of New Century Mortgage Corporation (the "Company"), and further
certify as follows:

            1. This certification is being made pursuant to the terms of the
Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 17, 2005 (the "Servicing Agreement"),
among New Century Home Equity Loan Trust 2005-4, as issuer, the Company, as
master servicer and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee.

            2. I have reviewed the activities of the Company during the
preceding year and the Company's performance under the Servicing Agreement and
to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled all
of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement throughout the year.

            Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings set
forth in the Servicing Agreement.


Dated: March 15, 2006
<PAGE>

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as
of March 15, 2006

                                             By: /s/ Kevin Cloyd
                                                 -------------------------------
                                             Name:  Kevin Cloyd
                                             Title: Executive Vice President

            I, Joseph Tortorelli, an Assistant Secretary of the Company, hereby
certify that Kevin Cloyd is a duly elected, qualified, and acting Executive Vice
President of the Company and that the signature appearing above is his genuine
signature.

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as
of March 15, 2006.


                                             By: /s/ Joseph Tortorelli
                                                 -------------------------------
                                             Name:  Joseph Tortorelli
                                             Title: Assistant Secretary
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 17

- 14742 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:17

- cr - 00007

- LJA

- TQL

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus SCOTT GWALTNEY, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________ (March 22, 2019) Before MARTIN , JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Alfreda L. Sheppard , appointed counsel for Scott Gwaltney in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

Case: 17-14742 Date Filed: 03/22/2019 Page: 1 of 22 appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (196 7). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GR ANTED , and Gwaltney’s conviction and sentence is AFFIRMED

.

Case: 17-14742 Date Filed: 03/22/2019 Page: 2 of 2
No. 53383.

protests 119202-K (New York).

#### Julius Wile Sons & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation that the merchandise consists of liqueur veritas similar in all material respects to that the subject" of *United States*v. *Julius Wile Sons & Co., Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 404), the claim at $2.50 per proof gallon under paragraph 802, as modified, was sustained. For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the second claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARIO JOHN TURNER,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00234-CR

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 2

of Collin County, Texas

(TC # 002-87100-2014)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on Appellant=s motion to dismiss and concludes the 

motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, in 

accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We further order 

that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSITA M. CHARLES,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

OFFICE OF NAVAJO & HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION, an Administrative Agency of the United States,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 17258

D.C. No. 3:16

- cv

- 08188

- SPL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 17, 2019 San Francisco, California

Before: McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and BATTAGLIA, ** District Judge.

The Office of Navajo & Hopi Indian Relocation (“ ONHIR ”) appeals the

district court’s grant of summary judgment to Rosita M. Charles (“ R. Charles ”)

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is n ot precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAY 28 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 17258

reversing the ONHIR’s denial of the application for relocation benefits and

remanding the case to the ONHIR for an award of relocation assistance benefits . We

review de no vo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Brunozzi v. Cable

Comm c ’ns, Inc. , 851 F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir. 2017). We review the ONHIR’s

decision to determine if it was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, . . .

otherwise not in accordanc e with law,” or “unsupported by substantial evidence.”

5 U.S.C. § 706(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse the

district court’s grant of summary judgment and affirm the ONHIR’s denial of

relocation assistance benefits

.

The “sub stantial and recurring contacts” standard applied by the district court

is no longer the correct standard under current regulations. The correct standard is

“intent to reside combined with manifestations of that intent.” 49 Fed. Reg. 22,277.

Under the correct standard, the ONHIR’s determination to deny benefits to R.

Charles was supported by substantial evidence

. It is undisputed that R. Charles

became a head of household in 1983. In 1983, R. Charles joined the Many Farms

Chapter. R. Charle s testified that she continued to visit her aunt’s residence in

Teesto. However, the ONHIR reasonably relied upon R. Charles’ voluntary decision

to join the Many Farms Chapter at the time she became a head of household. The

ONHIR concluded that R

. Charles failed to meet her burden of proving that, once

she became a head of household, she was a “legal resident” of Teesto , which was3 17

- 17258

designated Hopi Partitioned Land. 25 C.F.R. §§ 700.97(a), 700.147(b). In light of

the substantial deference afforded t o such agency determinations, we observe no

reversible error in the ONHIR’s conclusion

.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO

AFFIRM THE ONHIR

.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00471-CV

Chapparal Operating Company

v.

EnergyPro, Inc. §

§

§

§ From the 43rd District Court

of Parker County (CV16-0081)

October 26, 2017

Opinion by Justice Kerr



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the tria l court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant Chapparal Operating Company shall pay

all of the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By __/s/ Elizabeth Kerr_______

__________ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00014-CV

DANIEL L. RATLIFF AND CONNIE L.

RATLIFF, Appellants

V.

HOMES BY ASHLEY, INC., Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from County Court at 

Law No. 1

of Tarrant County (2019-006995-1)

March 5, 2020

Opinion by Justice Kerr

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Elizabeth Kerr_________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
Consultation Process: Responses to Standard Questions

Questions :

1. The ICR (Information Collection Request) is intended to requi re that respondents provide certain data so that the Agency can utilize them. Based on the instructions, is it clear to respondents what they are required to do and how to submit such data? If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions?

2. Do respondents understand what they are re quired to submit or maintain in their records? Is the reporting form cl ear, logical, and easy to complete?

3. The Government Paperwork Elimination Ac t requires agencies make available to the public electronic reporting alte rnatives to paper-based s ubmissions by 2003, unless there is a strong reason for not doing so. If the Agency were able to ensure the security of CBI that might be transmitted over the Internet and the reporting form could be completed electronically, would you be interested in submitting it electronically?

Current electronic reporting alternatives in clude the use of “web forms”/XML based submissions via the Agency’s internet site and magnetic media-based submissions (i.e., on diskette, CD-ROM, etc.) Are you interested in using, or ar e they curren tly utilizing, electronic reporting/reco rd-keeping options?

4. Where a reporting requirement includes a signature requirement, consider whether a secure electronic signature method (such as Private Key Infrastructure) should be required if submitting electronically; whether a le ss secure method (such as the use of PINs and passwords) would be more appropr iate; or, whether a signed cover sheet may be sufficient for the Agency’s purposes when data is submitted on disk.

5. If you prefer one method to another, does your choice balance burdens and costs against electronic data and si gnature security integrity?

6. If an electronic reporting option is not offered because of CBI-related concerns, would you be more inclined to submit CBI on diskette than on paper? What benefits would you realize? (Burden reducti on? Greater efficiency in compiling the information?).

7. The labor rates included in the Agency’s estimated bur den hours and costs are a U.S. average that includes costs for overhead a nd benefits. These estimates include only burden hours and costs associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR (i.e., the Agency does not include estimated burden hours and costs for usual and customary business practices such as R&D, marketi ng, etc.). Are the estimated burden hours and

labor rates accurate?

8. Are there other costs that should be acc ounted for that may have been missed, such as capital/start-up/M&O expenditu res? If so, please provide an explanation of how you arrived at your estimate of burden and cost if substantially different than EPA’s estimate.
December 16, 1964

Reap. Dec. 10871.

#### The A. W. Fenton Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

reappraisement R62/3788, etc.

Reappraisements dismissed February 18, 1963. Entered at Cleveland, Ohio. (Not published.) Motion by plaintiff.