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

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. PF06-25-000; Docket No. PF06-26-000] 

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) is issuing this notice to announce the time, dates, and locations of a series of public informational meetings to discuss the environmental review process for the liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal proposed by Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. in Coos County, Oregon, and the associated 223-mile-long 36-inch-diameter sendout pipeline proposed by Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, L.P. extending from the LNG terminal, across Coos, Douglas, Jackson, and Klamath Counties, to an interconnection with Pacific Gas and Electric Company facilities near Malin, Oregon. Also participating in the meetings will be staff from agencies that are cooperating with the FERC in the production of an environmental impact statement for the projects, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management.

The meetings will all begin promptly at 6:30 p.m., (PST) (doors will open at about 6 p.m. for sign-in), on the dates below at the following locations: 

## Tuesday, January 23, 2007 

Umpqua Community College, Campus Center Dining Room/Timber Room, 1140 Umpqua College Rd., Roseburg, OR 97470. 541-440-4600. 

## Wednesday, January 24, 2007 

North Bend Community Center, 2222 Broadway St., North Bend, OR 97459. 541-756-8500. 

## Thursday, January 25, 2007 

Red Lion Inn, 200 N. Riverside Ave., Medford, OR 97501. 541-779-5811. 

                        These events are posted on the Commission's calendar located at                         *http://www.ferc.gov/​EventCalendar/​EventsList.aspx*                         along with other related information. For additional information, please contact the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (202) 502-8004.                     

Magalie R. Salas, 

Secretary. 

 [FR Doc. E7-437 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
## DEPARTMENT

## OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY KATHLEEN BABJNEAUX BLANCO QOVERNOR ph D.
December 11,2007
Mr. Guy R. Donaldson, cmef, Air Plannmg Secrion Mail Code 

### 6-PD-L US EPA Region 6 1445Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, 

### TX 75202-2733 

### RE: State Implementation 

### Plan (SIP) infrastructure requirements under Section 110(a)(l) and (2) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA) Dear 

### Mr. Donaldson: The state of Louisiana, through the Departmentof Environmental Quality, has evaluated its existing SIPfor implementation ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone 

### and PM2,$ MAAQS 

### to determineif it includes all the requirementsin Section 110(a)(l) and (2) ofthe CAA and is consistent 

### with the guidanceprovidedto the Regional Air Division Directors from William 

### T. Hamettt, Director, Air Quality Policy Division on October 2,2007. We conclude and certify that the Louisiana SIP does meet theserequirements. Ifyou have any further questionspertaining to this matter, please contactJames Orgeron of the 

### Air Quality Planning Division at 225-219-3578. Sincerely, /.$e 

# 0. &dl 

# d
~ikia-~. McDanieJ Ph.D. Secretary



## OFFlCE 

# 06 THE SECRETARV : nOX1301,MTON ROUGE, LA 70821-4301 P:225-21%3!353 Fa-2193971 

### %'AwEQ-
No. 59588.

protest 166841-K (Baltimore).

#### Samuel Shapiro & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

At the trial, counsel for the plaintiff stated that he had not obtained, and there was considerable doubt that he could obtain, evidence necessary to prove his case. The ease having been docketed several times, plaintiff’s request for a further continuance was denied, and the case was ordered submitted. The protest was overruled, the court holding that there was no evidence of record sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action.
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

COLLEEN LEAVITT, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2468 LKK CMK 

vs.

SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF O R D E R

SUPERVISORS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, Colleen Leavitt, is proceeding pro se in this petition for a writ of administrative

mandamus. Plaintiff filed her petition in California State court pursuant to California’s

mandamus provisions, but because she named the Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,

as a real party in interest, her petition was removed to federal court. This matter was referred to a

Untied States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-

302(b)(21). 

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02468-LKK -CMK Document 50 Filed 11/07/05 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

2

On October 13, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 13, 2005, are adopted in full; 

2. Real party in interest Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX’s Motion for

Judgment on the Pleadings (doc. 32) is granted and;

3. The Motion to Remand by defendant Shasta County Board of Supervisors, Shasta

County Air Pollution Control Board, Shasta County Air Quality Management District and Shasta

Lake City Council (doc. 42) is granted. 

DATED: November 7, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02468-LKK -CMK Document 50 Filed 11/07/05 Page 2 of 2
June 20, 1940

No. 44026.

Suit 4298.

#### Premier *Dental Products Co.*v. *United States.*

reversed. C. A. D. 123.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4135

_____________________________

CHRISTOPHER NATHANIEL 

BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Emergency Petition for a Writ of Prohibition—Original 

Jurisdiction.

June 22, 2018

PER CURIAM.

The petition is DENIED without prejudice to Petitioner’s 

ability to raise the affirmative defense of self-defense at trial. See

Mederos v. State, 102 So. 3d 7, 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

LEWIS, ROBERTS, and JAY, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Candice K. Brower, Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, 

and Patricia Kyser, Assistant Regional Counsel, Jacksonville, for 

Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Steve Woods, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 AMP Productions, Ltd. on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas E. Mills, Chief Executive
Officer, President, Principal Accounting Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: July 11, 2008                             By /s/ Thomas Mills
                                                Thomas E. Mills
                                                President, CEO,
                                                Principal Accounting Officer and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
---

---

Exhibit 4.(a).48



The State of Israel
Ministry of Communications

General License for Partner Communications Ltd. for the Provision of
Mobile Radio Telephone (MRT) Services using the Cellular Method

# Amendment No. 35

By virtue of the powers of the
Minister of Communications under Article 4 (e) of the Communications Law
(Telecommunications and Broadcasts), 5742-1982, that have been delegated to us, by all our
other powers under any law and after having given Partner Communications Company
Ltd. (hereinafter: Partner) the opportunity to present their
arguments regarding this matter, we hereby amend the General License for the provision of
mobile radio telephone (MRT) services using the cellular method granted to Partner on 7
April 1998, as follows:

# Replacement of Annex L

Instead
of Annex L shall come the revised Annex L attached hereto.

(25 July 2006)

| | (sgd)
Mordechai Mordechai  Director-General | (sgd)
Haim Giron, Adv.Senior Deputy Director-General,Engineering and Licensing
| | --------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-1024 

________________________________________________________________________ 

ATOMIC ENERGY 

International Thermonuclear 

Experimental Reactor (ITER) Project 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and OTHER GOVERNMENTS 

Signed at Paris November 21, 2006 

with 

Annexes 
 

NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 

 MULTILATERAL 

Atomic Energy: International Thermonuclear 

 Experimental Reactor (ITER) Project 

 Agreement signed at Paris November 21, 2006; 

 Entered into force October 24, 2007. 

 With annexes.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerald A. Hinds, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 473]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Wells, J.), rendered January 19, 1994, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s application to withdraw his plea of guilty *(see, People v Ladelokun,*192 AD2d 723; *People v Chestnut,*188 AD2d 480). Appellate review of the remaining issues raised by the defendant was effectively waived by him as part of his plea agreement. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed *(see, People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273; *People v Williams,*36 NY2d 829, *cert denied*423 US 873). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
No. 50072.

#### Protests 100129-K, etc., of Magnus, Mabee *&*Reynard, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Commercial Clothes Washers Final Rule Technical Support Document

Search Help More Search Options EERE Information Center Programs and Offices Printable Version 

## Commercial Clothes Washers Final Rule Technical Support Document Here you will find the technical analysis and results in support of the information presented in the final rule for commercial clothes washers. The following documents are available as Adobe Acrobat PDFs. Download Adobe Reader .

● Title Page ( PDF 17 KB ) ● Table of Contents ( PDF 13 KB ) 

### Chapters ● Chapter 1. Introduction ( PDF 76 KB ) ● Chapter 2. Analytical Framework ( PDF 163 KB ) ● Chapter 3. Market and Technology Assessment ( PDF 693 KB ) ● Chapter 4. Screening Analysis ( PDF 38 KB ) ● Chapter 5. Engineering Analysis ( PDF 155 KB ) ● Chapter 6. Energy and Water Use Determination ( PDF 114 KB ) ● Chapter 7. Markups for Equipment Price Determination ( PDF 114 KB ) ● Chapter 8. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis ( PDF 427 KB ) ● Chapter 9. Trial Standard Levels ( PDF 26 KB ) ● Chapter 10. Shipments Analysis ( PDF 185 KB ) ● Chapter 11. National Impact Analysis ( PDF 181 KB ) ● Chapter 12. Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis ( PDF 126 KB ) ● Chapter 13. Manufacturer Impact Analysis ( PDF 713 KB ) ● Chapter 14. Utility Impact Analysis ( PDF 155 KB ) ● Chapter 15. Employment Impact Analysis ( PDF 51 KB ) ● Chapter 16. Environmental Impact Analysis ( PDF 167 KB ) ● Chapter 17. Regulatory Impact Analysis ( PDF 187 KB ) 

### Appendices ● Appendix 5A AHAM Data Submittal ( PDF 33 KB ) ● Appendix 8A User Instructions for LCC and PBP Spreadsheets ( PDF 28 KB ) ● Appendix 8B Uncertainty and Variability ( PDF 32 KB ) ● Appendix 8C Lifetime Distributions ( PDF 35 KB ) ● Appendix 10A Relative Price Elasticity of Demand for Appliances ( PDF 133 KB ) http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/clothes_washers_ecs_final_rule_tsd.html (1 of 2) [1/22/2010 4:41:36 PM]Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Commercial Clothes Washers Final Rule Technical Support Document ● Appendix 11A User Instructions for Shipments and NIA Spreadsheets ( PDF 23 KB ) ● Appendix 11B National Equipment and Operating Costs ( PDF 33 KB ) ● Appendix 11C Market Segment Sensitivity Analysis ( PDF 85 KB ) ● Appendix 13A The Low-Volume Manufacturer ( PDF 58 KB ) ● Appendix 13B Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) ( PDF 61 KB ) ● Appendix 13C Federal Production Tax Credit ( PDF 82 KB) ● Appendix 14A Interpolation of Utility and Environmental Results from NEMS-BT Output ( PDF 32 KB ) ● Appendix 17A Regulatory Impact Analysis Supporting Material ( PDF 108 KB ) 

### Contact Information Stephen Witkowski, P.E. Project Manager 202-586-7463 Printable Version Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov Content Last Updated: 01/18/2010

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/clothes_washers_ecs_final_rule_tsd.html (2 of 2) [1/22/2010 4:41:36 PM]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FORT JAMES CORPORATION DECEMBER 28, 1997 FORM 10-K FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000053117
<NAME> FORT JAMES CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1997
<CASH>                                              34
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      788
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        854
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,917
<PP&E>                                           7,784
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,219
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,733
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,584
<BONDS>                                          4,156
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        353
<COMMON>                                            21
<OTHER-SE>                                         211
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,733
<SALES>                                          7,259
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,259
<CGS>                                            5,078
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,078
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   454
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 352
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    272
<INCOME-TAX>                                       164
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                105
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (132)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (27)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.28)
        


</TABLE>
No. 56454.

protests 596608-G, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### American Import Company et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
(Reap. Dec. 8705)

Entry No. W-12083.

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 4, 1956)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above, with the exception of one case of wooden spoons, T-6773 purchased from Tayama Shoten, at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was the appraised value less additions made to meet the advances by the Appraiser in similar cases covering the non-dutiable so-called (E. O. B.) charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and lighterage added by the importer on entry.

> *584IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher domestic value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeal to Re-appraisement enumerated above may be submitted for decision on this stipulation.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find and hold that the export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, except one case of wooden spoons, T-6773 purchased from Tayama Shoten, and that such values of the respective items of merchandise are the appraised values, less additions made to meet the advances by the appraiser in similar cases covering the nondutiable so-called (f. o. b.) charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling, and lighterage.

The appeal, insofar as it relates to one case of wooden spoons, T-6773 purchased from Tayama Shoten, is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the First Division,

June 11, 1962

No. 66844.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons of Niagara, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/22096 (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of “Diversol” similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 65466, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 1713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-430]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP98-18-027]


Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

January 8, 2007.
    Take notice that on January 5, 2007, Iroquois Gas Transmission 
System, L.P. (Iroquois) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute Original Sheet No. 6K, 
to be effective on December 1, 2006.
    Iroquois states that the filing is being made in compliance with 
the Commission's order issued on December 18, 2006 in the above-
referenced proceeding.
    Iroquois states that copies of its filing were served on all 
jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance 
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests 
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of 
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest 
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the 
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    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#8ec8cbdccdc1e0e2e7e0ebddfbfefee1fcfacee8ebfceda0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="175152455458797b7e797244626767786563577172657439707861">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-430 Filed 1-12-07; 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>
No. 65478.

#### D. J. Ambrosio *v.*United States,

protest 60/21398 (New York).

Opinion by

La whence, J.

The protest was dismissed.