alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8718-8719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3349]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. QF90-65-014]


Cogen Technologies Linden Venture, L.P.: East Coast Power Linden 
Holding, L.L.P; Notice of Filing

February 21, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 14, 2007 Cogen Technologies Linden 
Venture, L.P. and East Coast Power Linden Holding, L.L.P. filed an 
application for recertification as a qualifying Cogeneration Facility, 
pursuant to section 292.207(b) of the Commission's regulations.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.

[[Page 8719]]

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2e686b7c6d61404247404b7d5b5e5e415c5a6e484b5c4d00494158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f8bebdaabbb7969491969dab8d8888978a8cb89e9d8a9bd69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 1, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-3349 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
(Reap. Dec. 8152)

#### City of Paris Dry Goods Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 8975, etc.

(Decided July 25, 1952)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (George R. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. FilzGibbon,*special attorney), for the defendant.

*459OliveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated, by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court:

> 1) That the merchandise marked *“A”*on the invoices and initialed TLW by Customs Examiner T. L. Walton, involved in the appeals listed in the attached schedule, consists of merchandise exported from France, and appraised at values which included the so-called production or unique tax (also known as the French Fiscal Reform Law tax) in the amounts as shown by the invoices and accompanying certificates of pending reappraisement.

> 2) That merchandise such or similar to the imported merchandise, marked “A” in paragraph I, when sold or offered for sale at the time of exportation, in France for home consumption, or for exportation to countries other than the United States, in the ordinary course of trade to all purchasers, and in the usual wholesale quantities, was sold or offered for sale at the appraised values herein, less the French Fiscal Reform Tax (Production or Unique tax) as referred to above in paragraph 1 and as added by the importer on entry, plus 1.01 percent Armament tax when not included in the appraised value, packed, and that the export value was no higher.

> 3) That all other claims of the plaintiffs, as raised by these appeals, are hereby abandoned, and that upon this stipulation these eases are submitted.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, or as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise represented on the invoices by the items marked “A” and initialed TLW by Customs Examiner T. L. Walton, and that such values were the appraised values, less' the French fiscal reform tax (production or unique tax) as added by the importers on entry, plus 1.01 per centum armament tax when not included in the appraised value, packed.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 51372.

#### Protests 122694-K, etc., of Western Import Co. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved *in United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of the various barrels, casks, packages, etc., was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination, because of breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gaugers’ returns as verified by the affidavits of the importer. The protests were sustained to this extent.
#### Michael R. VARGAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAFEWAY STORES, INC., a corporation doing business in Arizona; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-16756.

D.C. No. CV-98-01411-EHC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 21, 2001.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant's request is denied.

*557MEMORANDUM **

Michael R. Vargas appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his Title VII claim and the summary judgment for defendants on his remaining claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both a dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), *Tyler v. Cisneros,*136 F.3d 603, 607 (9th Cir.1998), and a summary judgment, *Nelmida v. Shelly Eurocars, Inc.,*112 F.3d 380, 383 (9th Cir.1997). We affirm.

Vargas contends that the district court erred by dismissing his Title VII claim on statute of limitations grounds because the statute of limitations should be construed to permit Vargas to file within a year of filing his charge. This contention lacks merit because a Title VII action must be commenced within ninety days of receipt of a right to sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. *See*42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l); *Nelmida,*112 F.3d at 383.

Summary judgment was properly granted to defendants on Vargas’s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim because Vargas failed to present evidence showing that the defendants’ articulated reasons for discharging him were mere pretext for discrimination. *See Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine,*450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981); *Patterson v. McLean Credit Union,*491 U.S. 164, 186, 109 S.Ct. 2363, 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989).

Vargas’s remaining contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
JOSTENS, INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED
JUNE 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          10,755
<SECURITIES>                                     2,552
<RECEIVABLES>                                  136,125
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,966)
<INVENTORY>                                     78,968
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               251,339
<PP&E>                                         188,251
<DEPRECIATION>                               (121,214)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 383,974
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          242,463
<BONDS>                                          3,874
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,884
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,917
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   383,974
<SALES>                                        695,149
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               695,149
<CGS>                                          332,212
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  332,212
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               268,135
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,403
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 87,479
<INCOME-TAX>                                    35,854
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             51,625
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    51,625
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.28


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LINDA HUDSON and, : CIVIL ACTION

STEPHANIE HUDSON :

Plaintiffs :

:

v. :

:

WILBERTO GONZALEZ and, :

DOLLAR RENT-A-CAR SYS, INC, and : 

RENTAL CAR FINANCE CORP, :

Defendants : NO. 02-4365

ORDER

AND NOW, this _____ day of January, 2003, upon

consideration of the Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery

Responses Directed to Plaintiffs (Docket #15), IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED THAT the motion is DENIED without prejudice pursuant to

Local Rule 26.1(f) because the motion does not contain a

certification of counsel that the parties, after reasonable

effort, are unable to resolve the dispute.

BY THE COURT:

______________________________

MARY A. McLAUGHLIN, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04365-MAM Document 16 Filed 01/17/2003 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 23.3**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-137196 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 1, 2007, (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of a new accounting standard) relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Wisconsin Power and Light Company and subsidiaries, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Wisconsin Power and Light Company for the year ended December 31, 2006.

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

March 1, 2007
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 73 Filed 07/27/2004 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 73 Filed 07/27/2004 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 73 Filed 07/27/2004 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 73 Filed 07/27/2004 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 73 Filed 07/27/2004 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 73 Filed 07/27/2004 Page 6 of 6
# sec5_snc_2023

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2023-02	&"Arial,Bold"&10Draft	&"Arial,Bold"&10December IRC Handout
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRED LEON JACKSON, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0471 DFL DAD P

vs.

R. ROWLETT, ORDER REQUIRING

Defendant. STATUS REPORT

 /

This matter has now been at issue for sufficient time that it should be ready to be

set for trial. Plaintiff and defendant shall therefore each submit to the court and serve by mail on

each other the following status report:

1. Whether this matter is ready for trial and, if not, why not;

2. Whether additional discovery is deemed necessary and, if so, the nature and

scope of the discovery and the time needed in which to complete it;

3. Whether a pretrial motion is contemplated and, if so, the type of motion and

the time needed to file the motion and complete the time schedule set forth in Local Rule 78-

230(m);

4. A narrative statement of the facts that will be offered by oral or documentary

evidence at trial;

Case 2:04-cv-00741-JAM-DAD Document 34 Filed 11/03/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

5. A list of all exhibits to be offered into evidence at the trial of the case;

6. A list of the names and addresses of all witnesses the party intends to call;

7. A summary of the anticipated testimony of any incarcerated witnesses;

8. The time estimated for trial;

9. Whether either party still requests trial by jury; and

 10. Any other matter, not covered above, which the party desires to call to the

attention of the court.

The parties are informed that they may, if all consent, have this case tried by a

United States Magistrate Judge while preserving their right to appeal to the United States Court

of Appeals. An appropriate form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge is attached. Any party

choosing to consent may complete the form and return it to the clerk of this court. Neither the

magistrate judge nor the district judge handling the case will be notified of the filing of a consent

form unless all parties to the action have consented.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s status report shall be filed and served within thirty days from the

date of service of this order. Defendant’s status report shall be filed within thirty days after

plaintiff’s status report is served. The parties are advised that failure to file a status report in

accordance with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the

action or preclusion of issues or witnesses.

2. The clerk of the court is directed to mail to all parties the form “Consent to

Proceed Before United States Magistrate Judge,” together with the instant order.

DATED: November 2, 2005.

DAD:13

jack0741.40

Case 2:04-cv-00741-JAM-DAD Document 34 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:05-cr-00240-GEB     Document 180     Filed 02/03/2006     Page 1 of 3

Case 2:05-cr-00240-GEB     Document 180     Filed 02/03/2006     Page 2 of 3

Case 2:05-cr-00240-GEB     Document 180     Filed 02/03/2006     Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>   1
AmerUs Group Co.
Exhibit 11 - Statement Re:  Computation of Earnings Per Share


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                            Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      2001                                  2000
                                                    -------------------------------------   -------------------------------------
                                                                   Number of   Per Share                     Number of  Per Share
                                                     Net Income     Shares      Amount          Net Income     Shares     Amount
                                                    -------------------------------------   -------------------------------------
<S>                                                  <C>          <C>         <C>           <C>           <C>         <C>
 ($ in thousands, except per share data)
 Basic EPS
     Net income from continuing operations               $19,458      29,973      $ 0.65        $14,985       17,390      $ 0.86

 Effect of dilutive securities
     Options                                                --           309         --            --             63         --
     Warrants                                               --          --           --            --           --           --
     Stock appreciation rights                              --            83         --            --           --           --
                                                    -------------------------------------   -------------------------------------
 Diluted EPS                                             $19,458      30,365      $ 0.64        $14,985       17,453      $ 0.86
                                                    =====================================   =====================================
</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

PHILLIP A. TALBERT

Assistant U.S. Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 554-2789

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 

VICENTE OCADIO,

 

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-S-04-0389-MCE

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

ON BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR

DEFENDANT OCADIO'S MOTION FOR

PRODUCTION OF CO-CONSPIRATOR

STATEMENTS WHICH FAIL TO MEET FRE

801(d)(2)(E)

DATE: June 29, 2005

Hon. Peter A. Nowinski

Plaintiff United States of America, by its counsel Assistant

United States Attorney Phillip A. Talbert, and defendant Vicente

Ocadio, by and through his counsel David G. Currie, hereby

stipulate and agree to the following briefing schedule for the

Government's Response and the Defendant's Reply thereto to

Defendant Ocadio's Motion for Production of Alleged CoConspirator Statements Which Fail to Meet FRE 801(d)(2)(E):

1. Government Response filed by June 14, 2005; 

2. Defendant's Reply filed by June 22, 2005. 

///

Case 2:04-cr-00389-MCE Document 124 Filed 06/07/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Date: June 2, 2005 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

By: /s/ Phillip A. Talbert 

PHILLIP A. TALBERT

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Date: June 2, 2005 By: /s/ David G. Currie by PAT 

 DAVID G. CURRIE, Attorney for 

 defendant VICENTE OCADIO

O R D E R

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cr-00389-MCE Document 124 Filed 06/07/05 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1-

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

WRIGHT & BRITTON

An Association of Attorneys

JOHN A. BRITTON - CBA NO. 055490

HAROLD C. WRIGHT - CBA NO. 044400

3001 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 350

Roseville, CA 95661

Telephone: (916) 781-2050

Facsimile: (916) 782-7560

Kurt T. Hendershott - CBA NO. 131036

CHAPMAN & INTRIERI, LLP 

2236 Mariner Square Drive, Suite 300

Alameda, CA 94501-1089

Telephone: (510) 864-3600

Facsimile: (510) 864-3601 

Attorneys for Defendants AUBURN HONDA and JAY COOPER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENISE YEAGER, ) CASE NO. CIV.S-04-0912 WBS GGH

) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

) STIPULATION AND ORDER OF 

vs. ) DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

)

AUBURN HONDA, JAY COOPER, ) 

JIMMY RAY MULLINS, AMERICAN ) 

HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., and )

DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, ) 

) 

Defendants. )

________________________________)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their attorneys

of record, with the full consent of the parties, that the action filed in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California entitled Denise Yeager vs. Auburn

Honda, Jay Cooper, Jimmy Ray Mullins, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al., Case No.

CIV.S-04-0912 WBS GGH, be dismissed, in its entirety, without leave to amend and with

prejudice, as to all Defendants.

DATED: 3-27-06 LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN F. JENNINGS, JR.

 By: /s/Martin-Jennings 

MARTIN F. JENNINGS, JR.

Attorney for Plaintiff DENISE YEAGER

Case 2:04-cv-00912-WBS-GGH Document 64 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

DATED: 3-27-06 WRIGHT & BRITTON

 By: /s/John-Britton 

JOHN A. BRITTON

Attorneys for Defendants 

AUBURN ASSOCIATES, INC.,

DBA AUBURN HONDA and JAY COOPER

DATED: 3-27-06 CHAPMAN & INTRIERI LLP

 By: /s/Kurt-Hendershott 

KURT T. HENDERSHOTT

Co-Counsel for Defendants

AUBURN HONDA and JAY COOPER 

DATED: 3-9-06 THE COSTA LAW FIRM

 By: /s/Daniel-Costa 

DANIEL P. COSTA

Attorneys for Defendant

JIMMY RAY MULLINS 

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 24, 2006

Case 2:04-cv-00912-WBS-GGH Document 64 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JABAR HALLY, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0828 DFL CMK P

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On November 4, 2005, petitioner filed a “notice of change of address.” That

document was not served on respondent. Petitioner is advised that every document submitted to

the court for consideration must be served on respondent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5; Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. §

2254. As a prisoner proceeding pro se, petitioner is required to serve all documents in this action

conventionally in accordance with the relevant provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. See Local Rule 5-

135(b). Since an attorney has filed a document with the court on behalf of respondent,

documents submitted by petitioner must be served on that attorney and not on the respondent. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(1). Conventional service is usually accomplished by mailing a copy of the

document to the attorney’s address of record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(B). Petitioner must

include with every document filed in this action a certificate stating the date an accurate copy of

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00828-RRB-CMK Document 17 Filed 11/18/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

the document was mailed to respondent’s attorney and the address to which it was mailed. See

Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s November 4, 2005, “notice of change of address” is stricken from

the record and will not be considered; and

2. Petitioner is ordered to properly serve any documents subsequently filed in this

action on respondent’s attorney of record. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this

order may result in the dismissal of this action. See Local Rule 11-110.

DATED: November 18, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00828-RRB-CMK Document 17 Filed 11/18/05 Page 2 of 2