alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4397]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-335-000]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

March 6, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 1, 2007, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 44, 
with a proposed effective date of April 1, 2007.
    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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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.
    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#73353621303c1d1f1a1d16200603031c010733151601105d141c05"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a3e5e6f1e0eccdcfcacdc6f0d6d3d3ccd1d7e3c5c6d1c08dc4ccd5">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4397 Filed 3-9-07; 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>
### R E : Off i c i a l C op i e s o f S t

a t u t o r y P r o v i s i on s I n c l uded i n A ugu s t 30

, 2012 S I P

, A tt a c h m en t B
A de l e M a l one t

o: J e ff e rs on W eh li ng 10 / 03 / 2012 08 : 09 AM
C c: R o r y M a ys

, A n t

hon y R obe r

ts

H i J e ff,

A s w e ag r eed , t he ND EP a ss e m b l ed t he o ff i c i a l v e r s i on o f t he s t a t u t e s s ub m i tt ed i n A tt a c h m en t B t o ou r A ugu s t 30

, 2012 r e v i s i on s ub m i tt a l . T he s e a r e f r o m t he 2011 v e r s i on o f t he Ne v ada Re v i s ed S t a t u t e s

. P l ea s e add t he a tt a c hed do c u m en t t o Ne v ada’ s A ugu s t 30

, 2012 i n f r a s t r u c t u r e S I P s ub m i tt a l a s a

s upp l e m en t t o A tt a c h m en t B.

Le t m e k no w i f y ou ha v e an y que s t i on s.

T han k s
, A de le

F r o m : J e ff er so n W e h li n g [ m a il t

o:W e h li n g

. J e ff

er so n @ e p a m a il

. e p a

. g ov ]
S e n t : F r i d a y

, S e p t

e mb er 28

, 2012 9 : 28

AM
To : Ade l e M

a l o ne C c : R o r y M a ys Su b j e c t : O ff i c i a l C o p i e s o f S tat u t

o r y Pr o v i s i o n s I nc l u d e d i n A u g u s t 30

, 2012 S I P

, A tta chm e n t B

A de l e:

T han k s aga i n f o r y ou r he l p a ss e m b li ng t he s e do c u m en t s . I w ou l d app r e c i a t e y ou r r e v i e w o f t he a tt a c hed f il e
, w h i c h i n c l ude s t he o ff i c i a l pub li s hed v e r s i on s o f t he v a r i ou s s t a t u t o ry p r o v i s i on s i n c l uded in

a tt a c h m en t B t o ND EP' s A ugu s t 30

, 2012 S I P r e v i s i on s ub m i tt a l . I f a cc ep t ab l e
, p l ea s e s end a r e t u r n

e m a il r e

- a tt a c h i ng i t and i nd i c a t ed t ha t y ou w ou l d li k e t o add i t t o t he A ugu s t 30

, 2012 S I P s ub m i tt a l a s a

s upp l e m en t t o a tt a c h m en t B

. P l ea s e c a ll m e i f y ou ha v e an y que s t i on s . T han k s v e ry m u c h

.

J e ff W eh li ng U

. S

. EPA

, Reg i on 9 , O RC -2
75 Ha w t ho r ne S t r eet S an F r an c i s c o
, C A 94105 T e l ephone : ( 415 ) 972

- 3901

F a x : ( 415 ) 947

- 3570 Off i c i a l 2011 NR S f

o r EPA

, s upp l e m en t t

o 8

- 30

- 12 s ub m i tt

a l

. pdf
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELISE KING,

NO. CIV. 04-1902 LKK/EFB PS

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

ACORN HOUSING CORPORATION,

BRUCE DORPALEN, Director of

Housing, in his individual

and official capacity; LEZ 

TRUJILLO, Western Regional 

Supervisor, in her individual 

and official capacity,

Defendants.

 / 

On October 3, 2006, the court ordered plaintiff to show

cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file a

timely pretrial statement. The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s

response. Plaintiff, who is pro se, notes her confusion regarding

when to file the statement in light of Local Rule 16-281. Good 

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-01902-LKK -EFB Document 43 Filed 10/20/06 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

2

cause shown, the order to show cause is DISCHARGED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 20, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01902-LKK -EFB Document 43 Filed 10/20/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 54083.

#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 144108-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
From: <james.tamm@dot.gov>

To: <Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: William Charmley/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Ed Nam/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Robin Moran/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, <rebecca.yoon@dot.gov>

Date: 09/29/2010 08:31 PM

Subject: 2017-2025 CAFE and GHG NOI and TAR - Updated Versions Based on Interagency Comments

Chandana, 

Attached are updated versions of the 2017-2025 CAFE and GHG NOI and TAR based on all interagency 

comments received to date. Changes in the TAR are also being reviewed with CARB. Unless there are 

additional comments, EPA and NHTSA consider these drafts as final, and clean versions will be loaded 

into ROCIS tomorrow morning. There are two files each, one with track changes and the other clean.

Thank you in advance for coordinating interagency sign-off.

Jim

James Tamm

Fuel Economy Division Chief

Office of Rulemaking

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Rm W45-340

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE

Washington, DC 20590

202-493-0515
#### Marie O. Rodriguez, Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 93]

—Judgment, Court of Claims, New York County (Albert Blinder, J.), entered on or about August 18, 1994, *inter alia,*awarding claimant damages in the principal amount of $3,500,000, consisting of $1,500,000 for past pain and suffering, $500,000 for future pain and suffering, and $1,500,000 for the permanent loss of both legs, unanimously modified, on the facts, and the matter remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements, unless, within 20 days after service of a copy of this order, claimant stipulates to the entry of an amended judgment reducing the principal amounts of the award for past pain and suffering to $1,250,000, for future pain and suffering to $500,000, and for loss of both legs to $1,250,000, in which event the judgment, as so amended, is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Claimant is not collaterally estopped on the issue of damages by the award of damages that was made by the jury and reduced upon claimant’s stipulation in a prior action that claimant brought in Supreme Court against non-State defendants. There is no indication that the reversal of that judgment by the Court of Appeals was limited to the single issue of causation discussed in the Court’s decision *(Rivera v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*72 NY2d 1021), and the second jury verdict in Supreme Court, which was against claimant on the issue of liability, never even reached the issue of damages. Accordingly, the issue of damages was not " 'actually * * * determined’ ” in the prior action *(Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co.,*65 NY2d 449, 456; *see, Chung v New York City Tr. Auth.,*213 AD2d 619). However, we view the award as excessive to the extent indicated *(cf., supra).*Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Williams, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES BECKLES, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 13-71370 Agency No. A020-425-414

ORDER *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 5, 2015 Portland Oregon Before: FISHER, PAEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Pursuant to the parties’ joint request at oral argument, this case is remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). 1. As the government conceded at or al argument, the BIA erred as a matter of law in holding that Beckles’ three-year probationary sentence disqualified his conviction for treatment under Lujan-Armendariz v. INS , 222 F.3d 

# FILED

MAR 23 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.728, 749 (9th Cir. 2000), overruled by Nunez-Reyes v. Holder , 646 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). Although we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s exercise of discretion in declining to reopen proceedings sua sponte, we have jurisdiction to review the underlying legal error. See Singh v. Holder , 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014). Lujan-Armendarizitself extended Federal First Offender Act (FFOA) treatment to a noncitizen who successfully served five years of probation for a simple drug offense. See 222 F.3d at 733. Similarly, in Rice v. Holder , 597 F.3d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 2010), overruled on other grounds by Nunez-Reyes , 646 F.3d at 695, we held that a controlled substan ce offense was eligible for FFOA treatment even though the petitioner had been sentenced to three years’ probation, of which he had served approximately 19 months. See id. Remand is appropriate in order for the BIA to correctly apply Lujan-Armendariz in determining whether to sua sponte reopen Beckles’ proceedings. 2. In considering whether to exercise its discretion to grant Beckles’ motion to reopen, the BIA may consider other issues raised by the parties on appeal, including Beckles’ claim that his conviction was vacated for substantive (not rehabilitative) reasons, see Cardoso-Tlaseca v. Gonzales , 460 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2006); Matter of Pickering , 23 I. & N. Dec. 621, 624 (BIA 2003), and the
2government’s claim that Beckles’ divorce from his U.S. citizen wife and potential entry into the country as a crewmember in 1977 render him ineligible for relief. REMANDED.

3
MARIA COLLINS,

Appellant,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, 

National Association, WARREN E. 

COLLINS; any and all unknown 

parties claiming by, through, under, 

or against the herein named 

individual defendant(s) who are not 

known to be dead or alive, whether 

said unknown parties may claim an 

interest as spouses, heirs, devisees, 

grantees, or other claimants; John 

Tenant and Jane Tenant whose 

names are fictitious to account for 

parties in possession

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-1569

_____________________________/

Opinion filed June 14, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County.

Frederic A. Buttner, Judge.

Thomas E. Ice, Amanda L. Lundergan of ICE Appellate, Royal Palm Beach, for 

Appellant.

Elliot B. Kula and William Aaron Daniel of Kula & Associates, P.A., Miami, for 

Appellee.
2

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, CJ., OSTERHAUS, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0026 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0026

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending and extending Decision No 804/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 establishing a Community action programme to promote activities in the field of the protection of the Community's financial interests (Hercule II programme) (COM(2006)0339 - C6-0216/2006 - 2006/0114(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 287 E , 29/11/2007 P. 0104 - 0104 *

P6_TA(2007)0026

Community action programme to promote activities in the field of the protection of the Community's financial interests (Hercule II programme) ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending and extending Decision No 804/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 establishing a Community action programme to promote activities in the field of the protection of the Community's financial interests (Hercule II programme) (COM(2006)0339 — C6-0216/2006 — 2006/0114(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0339) [1],

- having regard to the European Court of Auditors' opinion No 6/2006 [2],

- having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 280 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0216/2006),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets (A6-0002/2007),

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Considers that the financial envelope indicated in the legislative proposal must be compatible with the ceiling of heading 5 of the new multiannual financial framework (MFF) and points out that the annual amount will be decided within the annual budgetary procedure in accordance with the provisions of point 37 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management [3];

3. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

[2] OJ C 302, 12.12.2006, p. 41.

[3] OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

--------------------------------------------------
**EXHIBIT
31.1**
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
302 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Stefan
A. Bird, certify that:
 
 1.
    I
      have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K ofCE
      Generation LLC;2.
    Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
      report;3.
    Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
      registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    The
      registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
      and we have:a)
    Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
      that material information relating to the registrant, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;b)
    Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures
      and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
      the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
      covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    Disclosed
      in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent
      fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting; and5.
    The
      registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
      most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
      the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of
      directors (or persons performing the equivalent
  function):a)All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control
      over financial reportingDate:
    February
      25, 2005
 
 /s/
Stefan A. Bird
 Stefan A.
Bird
 President
 (chief
executive officer)
(Reap. Dec. 10746)

#### Andrew Fisher Cycle Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 2888.

(Decided May 5, 1964)

*BrooJcs é BrooJcs*for the plaintiff.

*JoJm*TV. *Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the respective parties have submitted this appeal for reappraisement on a written stipulation, reading as follows;

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the appeal to reappraisement herein consists of tires, tubes and tapes exported from Holland.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such merchandise as that specified below was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for export to the United States, were the following unit invoiced prices net packed:

> Invoice Per

> Tires 100 Tires

> 10, 000 20 X 1.75 Black Vredestein $50. 66

> Tubes

> 10, 000 20 X 1.75 Butyl $28. 57

> 7, 000 24 X 1.75 Butyl $31. 50

> Tapes Per 100

> $2. 77 Ot O CM i — * O o © ©

> $2. 77 Ot o o ©

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such merchandise as the remainder of the merchandise specified on the invoice herein was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for export to the United States were the appraised unit prices less 3% net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeal to reap-praisement herein may be submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is statutory export value and hold that such value for the items enumerated below is as follows:

> *547Invoice Per 100

> Tires Tires

> 10, 000 20 X 1.75 Black Vredestein $50. 66

> Tubes

> 10, 000 20 X 1.75 Butyl $28. 57

> 7, 000 24 X 1.75 Butyl $31. 50

> Tapes Per 100

> 10, 000 20 X 1.75 $2. 77

> 7, 000 24 X 1.75 $2. 77

and that for all other merchandise included on the invoice, covered by the entry involved herein, said statutory value is the appraised unit prices, less 3 per centum, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
-1- 996.023/280727v1 

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

KELLY L. BORELLI (SBN 161499) 

LOTTE COLBERT (SBN 207157) 

RANDALL HAKES (SBN 233548) 

MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP 

1000 G Street, Third Floor 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: (916) 446-2300 

Facsimile: (916) 503-4000 

Attorneys for Defendants Ismael Lopez, individually and 

d/b/a/ Carniceria Familia Lopez Market #3 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SCOTT N. JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ISMAEL LOPEZ, individually and d/b/a/ 

CARNICERIA FAMILIA LOPEZ MARKET 

#3; DONALD F. DeHAVEN, individually and 

as TRUSTEE of the DONALD F. DeHAVEN 

1991 TRUST, U/D/T dated March 5, 1991; 

and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. CIV. S-04-2641 MCE DAD 

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEYS; 

ORDER 

Defendants Ismael Lopez, individually and d/b/a/ Carniceria Familia Lopez Market #3 hereby 

substitute Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld LLP, 1000 G Street, Third Floor, Sacramento, 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:04-cv-02641-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 08/01/05 Page 1 of 2
-2- 996.023/280727v1 

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

California 95814; telephone number: (916) 446-2300; facsimile number: (916) 503-4000 as counsel 

in the above-referenced action in lieu and in place of Hector A. Cavazos. 

DATED: July 22, 2005 MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP 

By: 

KELLY L. BORELLI 

LOTTE COLBERT 

Attorneys for Defendants ISMAEL LOPEZ, individually 

and d/b/a CARNICERIA FAMILIA LOPEZ MARKET 

#3 

I consent to this substitution. 

Dated:__July 22, 2005 _______________________________________ 

 Hector A. Cavazos 

I consent to this substitution. 

Dated:______________________ Ismael Lopez (original signature retained by attorney 

Lotte Colbert) 

_______________________________________________ 

 Ismael Lopez 

ORDER 

It is so ordered. 

Dated: August 1, 2005 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02641-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 08/01/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 50088.

#### Protests 46399-K, etc., of Dixie Veneer Co. et al. (Norfolk).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the flitches and half logs in question are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Dixie Veneer Co., Inc.*(32 C. C. P. A. 75, C. A. D. 288). In accordance therewith the merchandise was held entitled to entry free of tax or duty as claimed.