alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4400]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-338-000]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

March 6, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 1, 2007 Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 
Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in 
Appendix A attached to the filing. The tariff sheets are proposed to be 
effective April 1, 2007.
    Transco states that it is serving copies of the instant filing to 
its affected customers, interested state commissions and other 
interested parties.
    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#42040710010d2c2e2b2c27113732322d303602242730216c252d34"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6c2a293e2f2302000502093f191c1c031e182c0a091e0f420b031a">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4400 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>
Case No. 8,463.

#### LOEWIG GUSTAVUS v. The COLUMBUS.

[See Case No. 3.042.]
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 oral 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-Armendariz itself 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 substance 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

2
government’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
JZOED STqT,s UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

A 7

~ REGION 5 ~ 2 = 77 WEST JACKSON BOVLEVARD

~~ 'Tq

~ PRG ~EG~~ o CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590



# MAR 07 2012

REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF

WN-16J
Mr. Chris Antieau Great Lakes Shorelands Unit Water Resources Division Michigan Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 30473 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Re: Request for 15 Day Extension and Additional Extension
Dear Mr. Antieau: This letter responds to your letter of February 17, 2012 requesting an extension of time to provide your Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) consistency concurrence or obj ection on the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's national consistency determinations for re-issuance of the Vessel General Permit (VGP) and issuance of the Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP). EPA provided its "national consistency determinations" to you for review under section 307 of the CZMA by a letter dated December 08, 2011. In that letter, EPA explained that it anticipated your response within 60 days of receipt or that EPA would presume concurrence. Your letter indicated that you will be unable to complete your CZMA consistency review until the Michigan DEQ issues Clean Water Act (CWA) section 401 certifications for the draft VGP and sVGP. EPA believes that it is appropriate to provide additional time for completion of your CZMA consistency review because Michigan DEQ has until June 30, 2012 to either provide or waive CWA section 401 certification on the permits. By this letter, EPA provides you an extension of time until July 16, 2012 for completion of your CZMA consistency review, including your concurrence with or objection to EPA's national consistency determinations for the VGP and sVGP, respectively. The extension for your response is until your close of business on July 16, 2012. We are also notifying you now that in order to enable EPA to timely complete final action on these two permits, EPA generally will not be able to accommodate extensions beyond July 16, 2012. If a reply is not received within that time period, EPA intends to presume your concurrence. 

### See , 15 C.F.R. 930.41(a). It is important to all of us that we are able to take timely final action on the next VGP and sVGP, and completion of the CZMA review process is an important part of that. EPA urges you to initiate your CZMA review promptly, including in coordination with your colleagues conducting the 401 certification processes in Michigan DEQ.

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Pap-er (50% Postconsumer)If you have any questions, please contact Sean Ramach of my staff, at 312-886-5284 or

ramach.sean@epa.gov

. Sincerely,
_---
Tinka G. Hyde Director, Water Division
D

O

W

N

E

Y

B

R

A

N

D

L

L

P

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 

{00020926.DOC;} -1- 

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

DOWNEY BRAND LLP 

RHONDA CATE CANBY SBN 171571 

ANDREW L. COLLIER, SBN 191137 

MICHAEL J. KUZMICH, SBN 210088 

555 Capitol Mall, Tenth Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814-4686 

Telephone: (916) 444-1000 

Facsimile: (916) 444-2100 

Attorneys for GEORGE SUGARMAN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BILLBOARD VIDEO, INC., a Texas 

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GEORGE SUGARMAN, an individual, 

Defendant. 

___________________________________ 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. 

Case No. CIV. S-04-1787 KJM 

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

(Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 41(a))

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between BILLBOARD VIDEO, INC., SIGNUP, 

INC. dba MULTIMEDIA, and GEORGE SUGARMAN, that the above-captioned action be and 

hereby is dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and fees. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

 

/ / / 

Case 2:04-cv-01787-KJM Document 102 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 2
D

O

W

N

E

Y

B

R

A

N

D

L

L

P

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 

{00020926.DOC;} 2 

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Dated: November 29, 2005 DOWNEY BRAND LLP 

By: /s/ (original signature retained by attorney) 

ANDREW L. COLLIER 

Attorneys for 

GEORGE SUGARMAN 

Dated: November 29, 2005 BANKS & WATSON 

By: /s/ (original signature retained by attorney) 

STEPHEN PAFFRATH, Attorneys for 

BILLBOARD VIDEO, INC. 

individually, and as successor by 

merger to SIGNUP, INC. dba 

MULTIMEDIA 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-entitled matter is dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 30, 2005. 

_____________________________________ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-01787-KJM Document 102 Filed 12/01/05 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOL GARCIA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1927 FCD GGH P

vs.

K. PROSPER, et al.,

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On March 29, 2005, the court

issued an order addressing the amended complaint filed February 7, 2005. The court found that

the amended complaint stated a colorable claim for relief as to defendant Pompey. The court

dismissed the claims against defendants Prosper and Baron with thirty days to file a second

amended complaint. Thirty days passed and plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint. 

Accordingly, the court now orders service of the amended complaint as to defendant Pompey

only.

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

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendant: Pompey.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff 1 USM-285 form, one summons, an

instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed February 7, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-01927-FCD-GGH Document 12 Filed 06/10/05 Page 1 of 3
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

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 3

above; and 

d. Two copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed February 7, 2005. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States 

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

DATED: 6/9/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

gar1927.srv

Case 2:04-cv-01927-FCD-GGH Document 12 Filed 06/10/05 Page 2 of 3
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOL GARCIA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1927 FCD GGH P

vs.

K. PROSPER, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 1 completed summons form

 1 completed USM-285 forms

 2 copies of the 

 Complaint/Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01927-FCD-GGH Document 12 Filed 06/10/05 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 11

STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION

OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



|                                            |  |   |           |  |   |        |   |               
|------------------------------------------- |  | - | --------- |  | - | ------ | - | --------------
|                                            |  |   |           |  |   | SHARES
|Basic Shares outstanding at June 30, 2007   |  |   |           |  |   |        |   | 1,842,031     
|                                            |  |   |           |  |   |        |   |               
|Net income after tax                        |  | $ | 1,960,398 |  | = |        | $ | 1.06 per share
|                                            |  |   |           |  |   |        |   |               
|Basic shares outstanding                    |  |   | 1,842,031 |  |   |        |   |               
|Diluted Shares outstanding at June 30, 2007 |  |   |           |  |   |        |   | 1,876,781     
|                                            |  |   |           |  |   |        |   |               
|Net income after tax                        |  | $ | 1,960,398 |  | = |        | $ | 1.04 per share
|                                            |  |   |           |  |   |        |   |               
|Diluted shares outstanding                  |  |   | 1,876,781 |  |   |        |   |               

Note: Basic earnings per common share are computed as earnings divided by weighted average basic shares
outstanding. Diluted shares outstanding includes the difference between 94,000 stock options outstanding at June 30, 2007 less 54,389 shares that could be purchased using the option exercise proceeds should all stock options be exercised,
weighted for the period these options were outstanding. Diluted shares outstanding also includes those options that were exercised during fiscal 2007, weighted for the period before they were exercised. The total dilutive shares outstanding related
to stock options were 34,750. When a loss occurs, diluted earnings per common share and basic earnings per common share are the same.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6708** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v.
KEVIN LAMONT WALKER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United S tates District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News
. Rebecca Beach Smith , District Judge. ( 4:05

- cr - 00005

- RBS

- JEB

- 1 )

Submitted : August 18, 2011 Decided: August 23, 2011

Before WILKINSON , DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Kevin Lamont Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlo t nick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURI AM:
Kevin Lamont Walker appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s order and deny Walker’s motion to expedite the decision as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decision al process.

AFFIRMED
steam

_ record - Re: Request for Extension of EPA Questionnaire for Plant ID 02827

Gre etings,

This e-mail is a confirmation that your exte nsion request for the steam electric effluent guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Please be aware that submittal of an ex tension request to EPA does not alter the due date of your questionnaire unless and until EPA agre es to the extension and establishes a new date.

Sincerely, From: <Alicea.Jezebele @ epamail.epa. g ov> To: "Gaerlan, Joan" <JGa erlan@ci.glendale.ca.us> Date: 7/9/2010 10:18 AM Sub j ect: Re: Request for Extension of EPA Questionnaire for Plant ID 02827 Attachments: 070710 Request for Extension EPA Questionnaire.pdf Pa g e 1 of 2

8/17/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C36F777DO

...
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.9


AMENDMENT TO XL GROUP PLC
REINSURANCE SUPPLEMENTAL LONG TERM CASH INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN


WHEREAS, XL Group plc has petitioned the High Court of Ireland to approve a Scheme of Arrangement under the Irish Companies Act, the effect of which would be to impose a new holding company, incorporated in Bermuda, XL Group Ltd, as the ultimate parent holding company of the XL group of companies (the “Redomestication”); and
WHEREAS, XL Group plc maintains the XL Group plc Reinsurance Supplemental Long Term Cash Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to its authority under Section 8 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of XL Group plc wishes to amend the Plan in connection with the Redomestication; 
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
		
	1.
	THAT, the title of the Plan shall be the “XL Group Ltd Reinsurance Supplemental Long Term Cash Incentive Compensation Plan.”


		
	2.
	THAT, the Plan shall be amended such that each occurrence of the term “XL Group plc” shall instead refer to “XL Group Ltd”.


		
	3.
	THAT, the definition of “Company” in Section 2 of the Plan shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows:


“Company” means XL Group Ltd and any successor company.
		
	4.
	THAT, the definition of “Change in Control” in Section 2 of the Plan shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows: 


“Change in Control” shall be deemed to have occurred if and when any person, meaning an individual, a partnership, or other group or association as defined in Sections 13(d) and 14(d) of the United States Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (other than a group of which the Company is a member or which has been organized by the Company for the purposes of making such acquisition), acquires, directly or indirectly, 40 percent or more of the combined voting power of the outstanding securities of the Company having a right to vote in the election of directors. Ownership of 40 percent or more of the combined voting power of the outstanding securities of the Company by any person controlled directly or indirectly by the Company shall not be deemed a Change of Control of the Company; provided, however, that, as applied to any Award Amount that constitutes deferred compensation for purposes of Section 409A of the Code, a transaction will constitute a Change in Control only if it also qualifies as a “change in control event” (as defined in Treas. Reg. Section 1.409A-3(i)(5)).
		
	5.
	THAT, the foregoing amendments shall become effective, and shall be conditioned, upon the consummation of the Redomestication.


		
	6.
	THAT, except as expressly amended hereby, the Plan remains in full force and effect.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RICARDO CRUZAGOSTO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-30474

D.C. No. 3:02-cr-00100-HRH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

H. Russel Holland, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Ricardo Cruzagosto appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

Cruzagosto contends that the district court erred when it failed to lower his

FILED

OCT 12 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-30474

sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) following the United States

Sentencing Commission’s adoption of Amendment 706. We affirm in light of

Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (2010).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1





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 Quarterly Report of Cheviot Financial Corp. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this Certification (the “Report”), I, Thomas J. Linneman, President and Chief Executive 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, to my 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.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cheviot Financial Corporation and will be retained by Cheviot Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/Thomas J. LinnemanThomas J. LinnemanPresident and Chief Executive Officer




Date:  November 14, 2011
No. 54078.

#### Joseph Victori & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 134945-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

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