alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 100 (Thursday, May 24, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 29148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9980]



[[Page 29148]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. QF06-346-000]


Newark America; Notice of Filing of Notice of Self-Certification 
of Qualifying Status of a Cogeneration Facility

May 18, 2007.
    Take notice that on September 19, 2006, Newark America, 100 Newark 
Way, Fitchburg, MA 01420 filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission a notice of self-certification of a facility as a qualifying 
cogeneration facility pursuant to 18 CFR. 292.207(a) of the 
Commission's regulations.
    The Facility is a recycled paperboard manufacturing plant. The 
facility is installing a topping cycle steam turbine to convert its 
current steam production facilities to a Cogeneration Facility. The 
primary energy source used by the facility is and will continue to be 
natural gas with No.2 distillate fuel oil as the backup fuel. The 
nameplate capacity of non-fired General Electric Steam Turbine 
Generator being installed is 6.25MW. The facility is located in 
Worcester county of Massachusetts at 100 Newark Way, Fitchburg, MA 
01420.
    The facility will interconnect to Unitil (Fitchburg Gas and 
Electric). The Newark America manufacturing facility currently receives 
delivery service for electrical energy under current applicable 
Fitchburg Gas and Electric industrial electric rate tariffs on file 
with the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy 
(DTE) and expects to continue to receive service under the these 
tariffs.
    A notice of self-certification does not institute a proceeding 
regarding qualifying facility status; a notice of self-certification 
provides notice that the entity making filing has determined the 
Facility meets the applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Any 
person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so 
by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii).
    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#a8eeedfaebe7c6c4c1c6cdfbddd8d8c7dadce8cecddacb86cfc7de"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="397f7c6b7a76575550575c6a4c4949564b4d795f5c4b5a175e564f">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9980 Filed 5-23-07; 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>
#### Thomas Houston, plaintiff in error, *vs.*the United States, defendant in error. Same *vs.*Same.

*Earor to Washington.*

A person recognized to appear at the Distrtct Court to answer, &c., is subject to the costs of the recognizance, although no prosecutor appears.

The defendant in error was bound over in two cases, to keep the 1 peace, and to appear at the next term of the District Court of Washing. I ton county, on the complaint of Henry C. Mott, for threatening to shoot j said Mott, &c. At the June term, 1842, Houston appeared in court by 1 his attorney, but Mott, the prosecuting witness, failed to make his j appearance, nor did any other witness appear, to have said Houston | continued under recognizance. Thereupon the court ordered Houston to be discharged *from*his recognizance, and that be pay the costs of the proceeding, and judgment was rendered accordingly. For this the defendant below, seeks to reverse the judgment.

Bates & Habbison, for plaintiff in error,

assigns:

1. The court ought not to have rendered judgment against sard defendant, when he was discharged, and the prosecuting witness did not appear against him.

2. The court erred in rendering judgment for costs against said defendant.

3. The court should have proceeded to investigate the matter by hearing testimony, or else discharged the defendant without costs.

4. And for other errors appearing from the papers and proceedings.

J. P. Cakeeton, for the United States.

Bv the Coubt,

Masow, Cheif Justice.

The plaintiff in error, was bound ever in two cases to keep the peace, and appear at the next term of the District Court of Washington county. He appeared accordingly, and no prosecutor appearing against him, he was discharged upon payment of costs. His counsel contends that the judgment *for,**175coats against him, was erroneous, and that the District Court had no power, without an investigation, to render such judgment. We think otherwise. The District Court had a right to presume that the plaintiff in error, had been justly bound over by the justice of the peace. If so, he ought to pay the costs of the proceeding. The prosecutor was no t bound to appear at the District Court, unless he wished the recognizance to be continued. We see no error below, and the judgment will therefore be affirmed.
# C_2012217EN.01001002.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Vodafone Omnitel Nv v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-231/12)

2012/C 217/20

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodafone Omnitel Nv

Applicant:

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.

1

---

(1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.

1

---
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this o pinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt exc ept unde r the limite d circumstances set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10436 C onfer enc e Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. G U AD AL U PE M AR TI N EZ , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp eal f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 09- C R

- 29- 1
B ef ore G A R Z A , D E N N IS, an d E L R O D , C i rcui t Ju dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h e F ederal P u bl i c D efen der app oi n t ed to represent G u ad al u pe M art i n ez has m o ve d f

o r l e av e t o w i t hdr aw and has f i l e d a b r i e f

i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A n d ers v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U. S
. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )
. M a r t i n e z h a s f i l e d a r e s p o n s e . O ur i n dep en den t revi ew of t h e rec ord, coun sel ’ s bri ef, an d M art i n ez ’ s r espon se di scl oses n o non f

ri vol o u s i ssue f

or app eal
. A ccor di n gl y, coun sel ’ s m ot i on f or l eave to w i t h draw i s G R A N T E D , coun seli s excused f rom f u rt h er r espon si bi l i t i es h e r e in , a n d th e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D
. S ee 5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 12, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-10436 Document: 00511027300 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2010
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.8

                 AMENDMENT TO TENANCY AGREEMENT (THE AGREEMENT)
                 ----------------------------------------------
                              DATE 17TH APRIL, 2002
                              ---------------------


DATE:

PARTIES:    BETWEEN THE PARTIES MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AND SET OUT IN THE
            FIRST SCHEDULE ATTACHED WITH THE AGREEMENT.

LANDLORD:   WING SHING PRODUCTS COMPANY LIMITED
TENANT:     PENTALPHA HONG KONG LTD

            WHEREBY IT IS AGREED TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT AS FOLLOWS AND EFFECT
            THE AMENDED TERMS FROM 1ST OCTOBER, 2002;

            THE SECOND SCHEDULE ATTACHED TO THE AGREEMENT
            ---------------------------------------------
                  (DESCRIPTION OF THE SAID PREMISES)
                  ----------------------------------

     Unit A&B 9-10/F., Kin Teck Industrial Building, 26 Wong Chuk Hang Road,
                               Aberdeen, Hong Kong
                           Aberdeen Inland Lot No. 347

                  THE THIRD SCHEDULE ATTACHED TO THE AGREEMENT

THE RENT OF HONG KONG DOLLARS SIXTY-SIX THOUSAND AND SIXTY (HKD66,060) PER
CALENDAR MONTH EFFECTIVE FROM 1ST OCTOBER 2002.
#### NEW YORK STATE BANK v. WESTERN BANK.

Oct. 15, 1836.

*Buie to show cause why the return to a commission should not he fded.*

Commission issued on interrogatories and cross interrogatories died, to take depositions of witnesses in another state, executed and transmitted to the counsel of the party at whose instance the commission issued. The court will make a rule on the counsel having the possession of the document to place it on file, the same being subject to exceptions as to the form and manner of taking, the competency of the testimony, Arc.

IN this case a rule for a commission had been entered by defendants to take the testimony of certain witnesses on their behalf, on interrogatories filed, in the state of New York. The plaintiffs filed cross interrogatories, and the commission was issued in the usual form. The commissioners executed the commission, and directed it to the defendants’ counsel, who received it, but who did not file it of record. September 17,1836, on the petition *17of plaintiff’s counsel, the court granted a rule on the defendant’s counsel to show cause why they should not file the commission and return made thereto by the commissioners. On the hearing of the rule,

*F. W. Hubbell,*for the plaintiff.

*Lex*and *Meredith,*for the defendants.

Per Curiam.—

The return of the execution of a commission is a document belonging to the court from which the commission issued, and not to the party at whose instance it issued. Notwithstanding the error of the commissioners in directing the return to the party, the court will order it to be placed on record, subject, however, for future action, if any may be required, under the 90th rule of the court, as to any irregularities of the commissioners, if any there be, on exceptions duly filed. Therefore, the following order is made:

> “October 15th, 1836. Rule absolute, the commission to be placed in the possession of the prothonotary, without prejudice to either party, and with the same effect as if it had been originally directed by the commissioners to the prothonotary, and regularly received by him, and opened by one of the judges of the court.”

Rule absolute.
EXHIBIT-23.1

              AUDITOR'S CONSENT OF DONALD G. JONES AND COMPANY, P.A.













                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



Board of Directors
Clover Community Bankshares, Inc.

         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in Clover  Community
Bankshares, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-71777),  relating
to the  registration  of up to 50,000  shares of its common  stock for  issuance
pursuant to the Clover Community Bankshares, Inc. Dividend Reinvestment Plan, of
our report  dated  January  24,  2002,  which is  included  in Clover  Community
Bankshares,  Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
2002.





                        s/Donald G. Jones and Company, P.A.


Columbia, South Carolina
March 27, 2003
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATION

I,
Stephen A. Snider, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Universal Compression, Inc. (the "registrant");

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 officer 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 have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer 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 functions):



|Date: June 10, 2004 |  |  | /s/STEPHEN A. SNIDERName: Stephen A. Snider
Title: Chief Executive Officer
|------------------- |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
No. 96-7607.

#### Trowery *v.*Gale et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of USIP.Com, Inc., (the “Company”)on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, CraigBurton, President 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 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.             The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: November 11, 2004 |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
|                    |
| /s/ Craig Burton        |   |
| Craig Burton, President |

 

----
Case No. 9,306.

#### MAUL v. SCOTT.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 367.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1822.

Execution — Return Nulla Bona — Sale by Debtor — Alias.

The lien upon the personal property of the debtor, arrested by the delivery of a fieri facias to the marshal, is lost by the return of nulla bona; and is not waived by the delivery of an alias fieri facias to the marshal, so as to overreach an intermediate sale by the debtor.

The plaintiff claimed property in a horse, which the defendant, as deputy marshal, had taken as the property of one E. P. Taylor, upon a fieri facias at the suit of A... B. The horse had been sold by Taylor to the plaintiff, Maul, on the 10th of January, the horse then being in the possession of one Edward Stone, as bailee of Taylor, who on that day gave a written order to Stone to deliver the horse to Maul. On the 29th of January, a fieri facias against Taylor was issued in favor of A. B., returnable on the 4th Monday of March, and delivered to the marshal on the 19th of February, and returned nulla bona. On the 27th of April, an alias fieri facias was issued and delivered to the marshal, upon which the marshal took the horse as the property of Taylor.

Mr. Hewitt, for defendant,

contended that the lien, if any, which took place on the 19th of February, continued (notwithstanding the return of that fieri facias nulla bona), up to the time of the delivery of the alias fieri fa-cias to the marshal, on the 27th of April.

THE COURT,

however

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, contra),

said that the lien was lost by the return of the fieri facias, nulla bona, and was not revived by the delivery of the alias fieri facias to the marshal. Verdict for the plaintiff. Motion for new trial on the ground of misdirection of the jury on that point, overruled.
# C_2012343EN.01001701.xml

| 10.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/17

---

Action brought on 28 August 2012 — Borrajo Canelo and Others v OHIM

(Case T-381/12)

2012/C 343/29

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Ana Borrajo Canelo (Madrid, Spain), Carlos Borrajo Canelo (Madrid), Luis Borrajo Canelo (Madrid) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Technoazúcar (Havana, Cuba)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Uphold the action and declare incompatible with Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (now Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 21 May 2012 in Case R 2265/2010-2, rejecting the action brought by the applicants for revocation against the decision of the Cancellation Division of 24 September 2010, rejecting the application for revocation of Community trade mark No 4 602 454 PALMA MULATA for goods in Class 33, for ‘rum’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Uphold the action and declare incompatible with Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (now Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 21 May 2012 in Case R 2265/2010-2, rejecting the action brought by the applicants for revocation against the decision of the Cancellation Division of 24 September 2010, rejecting the application for revocation of Community trade mark No 4 602 454 PALMA MULATA for goods in Class 33, for ‘rum’;

| — | Order the defendant and, as appropriate, the intervener, to pay all the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and, as appropriate, the intervener, to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: Nominative mark PALMA MULATA for goods in Class 33 — registered Community trade mark No 4 602 454

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Technoazúcar

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicants

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for revocation

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DLA Distribution participates in annual Toys for Tots campaign

By Dawn BonsellDLA Distribution Public Affairs

                NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa.  –              
The Marine Toys for Tots Toy Drive was an “overflowing success” at Defense Distribution Center Susquehanna. 

The mission of the Marine Toys for Tots Foundation is to assist the U. S. Marine Corps in providing a tangible sign of hope to economically disadvantaged children at Christmas.  Employees on the New Cumberland installation generously supported this patriotic community action program.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLADLA DistributionDistributionUS MarinesToys for Tots