alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 40 (Thursday, March 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3608]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. AC07-64-000]


Energy West Development, Inc.; Notice of Filing

February 23, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 14, 2007, Energy West Development 
Inc., submitted a request for a waiver of its requirement to submit a 
report of certification (CPA Certification Statement) of its 2005 FERC 
Form No. 2-A. The CPA Certification statement is required under section 
158.11 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 or 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. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to 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#9bdddec9d8d4f5f7f2f5fec8eeebebf4e9efdbfdfee9f8b5fcf4ed"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="02444750414d6c6e6b6c67517772726d707642646770612c656d74">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: March 16, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-3608 Filed 2-28-07; 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>
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4754 

To terminate the obligation to repay bonuses of former members of the 

Armed Forces separated for refusing the COVID–19 vaccine. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2024 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself and Mr. CORNYN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To terminate the obligation to repay bonuses of former members of the Armed Forces separated for refusing the 

COVID–19 vaccine. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF OBLIGATION TO REPAY BO4 NUSES OF MEMBERS SEPARATED FOR RE5 FUSING COVID–19 VACCINE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—A former member of the Armed 

7 Forces who was separated from the Armed Forces because 

8 the former member refused to obtain a COVID–19 vaccine 

9 shall be released for any obligation to repay any bonus 

10 received by the former member. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4754 IS

1 (b) REIMBURSMENT OF REPAYMENTS.—A former 

2 member of the Armed Forces described in subsection (a) 

3 who, before the date of the enactment of this Act, repaid 

4 any portion of a bonus described in that subsection shall 

5 be reimbursed for such repayment. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
No. 51029.

#### Protests 52597-K, etc., of Ahronheim & Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to' this extent.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of CBD Media
LLC (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | 1. | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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: November 15, 2004 |  |        |  |                        
|                        |  | By:    |  | /s/    Douglas A. Myers
|                        |  | Name:  |  | Douglas A. Myers       
|                        |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
|Date: November 15, 2004 |  |        |  |                        
|                        |  | By:    |  | /s/    John P. Schwing 
|                        |  | Name:  |  | John P. Schwing        
|                        |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 14, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4624]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER07-121-001]


Allegheny Energy, Inc., Monongahela Power Company, Allegheny 
Energy Supply Company, LLC; Notice of Filing

March 8, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 5, 2007, Allegheny Energy, Inc., 
Monongahela Power Company, and Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC 
filed a response to the Commission's December 20, 2006 data request.
    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.
    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#276162756468494b4e494274525757485553674142554409404851"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6b2d2e392824050702050e381e1b1b04191f2b0d0e1908450c041d">[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 26, 2007.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4624 Filed 3-13-07; 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. 53003.

#### Miles Laboratories, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 140365-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of ox gall or sheep gall the same in all material respects as the substance passed upon in *G. D. Searle & Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 112, C. D. 1138). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nadene Green, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 381]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), rendered March 31, 1993, convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree *364and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the jury had acquitted the defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree in connection with an alleged previous sale of cocaine to an undercover officer, an acquittal as to the charges arising out of the earlier transaction did not necessarily negate the element of intent to sell on the charges relating to the subsequent unrelated transaction *(see, People v Cruz,*147 AD2d 584; *cf, People v Nunez,*127 AD2d 801; *People v Dixon,*87 AD2d 828). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s contention that the court’s charge was improper is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Wilson,*154 AD2d 566; *People v Hammond,*143 AD2d 1043) and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Joy, J. P., Hart, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
Blueprint






 







EXHIBIT 10.1


 



MODIFICATION AGREEMENT No. 1 TO


 LINE
OF CREDIT NOTE


 


This
MODIFICATION AGREEMENT is made as of September 30, 2016 between
Infinite Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation with offices at 175
Sully’s Trail, Suite 202, Pittsford, NY 14534
(“Borrower”) and Donald W. Reeve, with an address at
7 Cross Meadow Lane, Pittsford, NY 14534 (“Lender”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Borrower has issued to Lender a line of credit note agreement
in the principal amount of up to $400,000 dated December 1, 2014,
which note has a balance of $388,040 at September 30, 2016 (the
“LOC Note”); and


 


WHEREAS,
the parties desire to further modify the terms and conditions of
the LOC Note as follows:


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:


 




1)

The LOC Note is
modified to provide that the time at which the entire principal
balance and accrued and unpaid interest shall be due and payable is
January 1, 2020.






 




2)

Principal shall be
payable monthly using an amortization schedule provided monthly by
the Lender’s bank.






 




3)

Except as modified
by this Agreement, all of the terms, covenants and conditions of
the LOC Note shall remain the same.






 


In
witness whereof, Borrower and Lender have executed this Agreement
under the day and year first written above.


 


INFINITE
GROUP, INC.


 


 



____/s/
James Villa__________________________


By:
James Villa, President


 


 


 


DONALD
W. REEVE


 


 


___/s/
Donald W. Reeve________________________


By:
Donald W. Reeve
Exhibit 13.(a).1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Partner Communications Company Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F/A for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:




1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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




Date: March 17, 2010




By: /s/ David Avner

——————————————

Name: David Avner

Title: Chief Executive Officer




Date: March 17, 2010




By: /s/ Emanuel Avner

——————————————

Name: Emanuel Avner

Title: Chief Financial Officer
Case No. 15,077.

#### UNITED STATES v. FAW.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 456.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1807.

Coboner—Indictment fob Making False Statement of Evidence—Doty in Stating Evidence.

Neither at common law, nor by the statute of Virginia, is the coroner bound to put in writing, the effect of the evidence given upon an inquisition, unless the offence be found to be murder or manslaughter.

The indictment charged, that the defendant [Abraham Faw], being coroner of the county- of Alexandria, and having, upon view of the dead body of one Curran, taken an inquest, stating that, while opposing the lawful orders of a justice of the peace, the said! Curran was killed by a brickbat thrown by some unknown person, but not finding the killing to be murder nor manslaughter, he, the defendant, “wilfully, injuriously, and unlawfully made a false statement of the evidence in writing, and suppressed material parts of the same; and annexed to the inquisition a false, colorable, and unfair statement, in writing, of the said evidence, under the false and colorable pretence of putting in writing and annexing to the said inquisition fairly and truly the effect of the said evidence, being material, in contempt of the laws of the United States, in violation of the duties and dignity of his office, and against the peace and government of the United States.”

E. .1. Lee, and F. L. Lee, for defendant,

moved the court to quash the indictment. The coroner is Lot bound at common law to-put down the effect of the evidence, in writing, in any ease; and by the law of Virginia (page 125, § 11; Nov. 29, 1792), he is required to do it only in case the inquisition shall charge some person with murder or manslaughter, which this inquisition does not. 1 Bl. Comm. 346; 2 Inst. 31; 4 Inst. 271. This is an indictment at common law, and if he was not bound at common law to state the evidence in writing, it is no offence to state-it imperfectly or incorrectly. And if it states-no offence at common law, it may and ought to be quashed on motion. Rex v. Page, 1 Lev. 304; Rex v. Sellars, 3 Mod. 167; Rex v. Griffith, Id. 201; Rex v. Whitehead, 1 Salk. 371; Rex v. Hotch, 1 Strange, 552; Rex v. Lister, 2 Strange, 788.

Mr. Jones, for United States, contra..

The coroner, at common law, has a right to-*1053take evidence in writing, and if he undertakes to do it, and does it unfaithfully, wil-fully, and falsely, it is an offence at common law. The depositions may be used for vari■ous purposes, as in a question of bail; or to justify an arrest of some person, or to discredit a witness upon the trial.

[See Case No. 15,079.]

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

.THE COURT,

at July term, 1808, quashed tiie indictment, being of opinion that it did not set foxfh an offence at common law, or under the statute; inasmuch as by the common law, the coroner was not bound to put •down in writing the evidence, or the effect •of it, and the statute required it to be done only when, by the inquisition, some person Is indicted for murder or manslaughter.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ROBERT J. HUDSON, Parachute Rigger Third Class, U. S. Navy, Appellant

16 USCMA 178, 36 CMR 334

No. 19,094

March 25, 1966

*Commander Walter F. Brown,*USN, argued the cause for Appellant, Accused.

*Major Paul F. Henderson, Jr.,*USMC, argued the cause for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Ferguson, Judge:

This is a companion case to United States v Metcalf, 16 USCMA 153, 36 CMR 209, this day decided, being tried in common therewith. For the reasons set forth in that opinion, the decision of the board of review is reversed and the record of trial returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy. A rehearing may be ordered.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Kil day concur.
No. 50491.

#### Protests 50282-K, etc., of Asia Co. et al. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nippon Co.*(32 C. C. P. A. 164, C. A. D. 303), which record was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith the merchandise represented by the items marked with the letter *“A”*on the invoices was held free of duty under paragraph 1705 as kelp; and that represented by the items marked with the letter “B” on the invoices was held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1540 as seaweeds, manufactured. The protests were sustained to this extent.
66°15'E 66°30°E 66°45'E

36 17000
3699000
32°30'N
3589000 !
| . |
PP, i i
i |
I L I
| , =
: ‘ 3
”
! Adis
! ,
I
32°15'N .
35700
7.
\
Vv
\
3552000
ri.
- ] |
i
LA
’ 1
I
AA
1
32°N
]
L
3 0000
5A : y
/
i
y !

EXPLANATION 0 10 KILOMETERS
— Road & Peak |—_____
—-— Stream, mostly intermittant [__] Image quadrant or tile 0 ° MILES

O City, town, or village
—- Province boundary
No. 52031.

#### Asche-Bandor Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 126892-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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

DAVID L. FULBRIGHT,

Petitioner, No. CIV S 04-2490 DFL PAN P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On December 13, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-02490-DFL-PAN Document 12 Filed 03/17/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 13, 2005, are adopted in

full; and

2. Respondent’s June 28, 2005 motion to dismiss is granted and this action is

dismissed.

DATED: 3/17/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02490-DFL-PAN Document 12 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the use of our report dated February 8, 1999, included in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Jefferson-Pilot Corporation for the year ended
December 31, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements, as
amended, included in this Form 10-K/A.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February
8, 1999, included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Jefferson-Pilot
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1998, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements, as amended, included in this Form 10-K/A,
and our report included in the following paragraph with respect to the
financial statement schedules, in the following Registration Statements:

   Form S-8, Nos. 2-36778, 2-56410, and 33-30530, pertaining to the
     Long Term Stock Incentive Plan and predecessor stock plans, and
     outstanding effective registration statements on Form S-16
     included in such S-8 filings;
   Form S-8, No. 33-56369, pertaining to the JP TeamShare Plan;
   Form S-8, No. 33-64137, pertaining to the Non-Employee Directors'
     Stock Option Plan;
   Form S-3, No. 33-63521, pertaining to debt securities and warrants
     to purchase securities.

Our audit also included the financial statement schedules of Jefferson-Pilot
Corporation listed in Item 14(a).  These schedules are the responsibility of
the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based
on our audits.  In our opinion, the financial statement schedules referred to
above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as
a whole, present fairly in all material respects the information set forth
therein.

                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Greensboro, North Carolina
November 23, 1999

                                     E-4
September 13, 1945

No. 50485.

Suit 4514.

#### United *States*v. *Tower & Sons.*

C. D. 919. Appeal dismissed August 9, 1945.
Case 2:04-cv-02309-LKK -KJM   Document 44    Filed 10/10/06   Page 1 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-02309-LKK -KJM   Document 44    Filed 10/10/06   Page 2 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-02309-LKK -KJM   Document 44    Filed 10/10/06   Page 3 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-02309-LKK -KJM   Document 44    Filed 10/10/06   Page 4 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-02309-LKK -KJM   Document 44    Filed 10/10/06   Page 5 of 5

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-26T15:31:22-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO