alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 171 (Thursday, September 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 46738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23414]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-467-000]


Trailblazer Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

August 28, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 26, 1997, Trailblazer Pipeline Company 
(Trailblazer) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third 
Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 177, to be effective 
October 1, 1997.
    Trailblazer states that the filing was made pursuant to Section 4 
of the Natural Gas Act, the Commission's Regulations thereunder 
regarding tariff changes, and Order No. 636-C. Specifically, 
Trailblazer requested to modify Sections 21.2(d)(1) and (d)(3) of the 
General Terms and Conditions of its tariff relating to the right of 
first refusal to provide for a five-year term matching cap instead of 
the currently effective twenty-year term match.
    Trailblazer requests whatever waivers are necessary to permit the 
tariff sheet to become effective on October 1, 1997.
    Trailblazer states that a copy of the filing has been mailed to 
Trailblazer's transportation customers and interested state regulatory 
agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 motion 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the public reference room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23414 Filed 9-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
HPagelof6RE:110(a)(2)(G)EmergencyEpisodePlans-InfrastructureSIPDianeArnstto:ColleenMcKaughan01/24/201202:59PMCc:AndrewSteckel,JeanheeHong,JeffersonWehling,JeffreyBuss,Lisa1-Ianf,NoahSmith,RoryMays,WienkeTax,“EricC.Massey”,TrevorBaggioreHideDetailsFrom:DianeAmst<Arnst.Dianeazdeq.gov>SortList...To:ColleenMcKaughanfR9/USEPA/US@EPACc:AndrewSteckel/R9/USEPA/IJS@EPA,JeanheeHong/R9/USEPA/US@EPA,JeffersonWehling/R9/USEPA/US@EPA,JeffreyBuss/R9/USEPAIUS@EPA,LisaHanf/R9/USEPA/US@EPA,NoahSmithIR9/USEPA/US@EPA,RoryMays/R9/USEPA/USEPA,WienkeTax/R9/USEPA/US@EPA,“EricC.Massey’<Massey.Ericazdeq.gov>,TrevorBaggiore<Baggiore.Trevorazdeq.gov>DanielleDanchofoundthatthe9126/90versionofRI8-2-220wassubmittedintheNSR/PSDSIPSubmittalonaugust15,1994?Page16ofthatsubmittalhastheversionofthisemergencyepisoderulethatincludesthereferencetotheOctober18,1988ProceduresforPreventionofemergencyepisodes.ThatwasoneversionBEFOREtheredactedversionoftheNSR/PSDSIP,tomorrowshewillfindArchiveBox344thathastheFRnoticesrelatedtoit,butmaybeyoucancheckyourrecordstoseeiftheproceduresthemselvesweresubmittedwiththatSIP.DianeL.Arnst,AttorneyatLawArizonaDepartmentofEnvironmentalQualityAirQualityDivisionPlanningSectionManager1110WestWashingtonStreetPhoenix,AZ85007(602)771-2375rnn@zqgQyFrom:ColleenMcKaughan

LmJltSent:Monday,January23,201210:51AMTo:DianeArnstCc:AndrewSteckel;JeanheeHong;JeffersonWehling;JeffreyBuss;LisaHanf;NoahSmith;RoryMays;WienkeTaxSubject:RE:110(a)(2)(G)EmergencyEpisodePlans-InfrastructureSIPtile:1/C:\DocumentsandSettings\nsrnith0I\LocalSettings\Temp\notesBAAA25\web4162...3/26/2012
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 14, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-18-00301-CR

BRANDON JOSEPH DE LA ROSA, Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 182nd District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1498441 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

Appellant Brandon Joseph de la Rosa appeals from his conviction for 

continuous sexual abuse of a child. After appellant waived his right to a jury, the 

trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to 47 years and 147 days in prison. 

In a single issue, appellant contends that the trial court erred in the punishment 

phase of trial by admitting evidence of an extraneous offense or bad act that 
2 

appellant allegedly committed when he was under ten years of age. Because 

appellant failed to preserve this complaint in the trial court, we affirm. 

Discussion 

 During the guilt-innocence phase of appellant’s trial, substantial evidence 

was introduced that appellant sexually abused his step-daughter from the time she 

was five or six years old until she turned ten or eleven. During the punishment 

phase, the State introduced evidence that appellant had previously sexually abused 

two other children on multiple occasions. One of the additional victims stated that 

appellant was between the ages of fourteen and nineteen when the abuse occurred, 

and the other stated that appellant was between the ages of eight and nine when the 

abuse occurred. 

On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence 

concerning the alleged abuse he committed when he was under ten years of age. 

Appellant asserts that such evidence was inadmissible because it occurred before 

he could have been criminally prosecuted for the offense, citing Texas Penal Code 

section 8.07. Appellant, however, did not object to this testimony in the trial court 

on any basis. To preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must have 

presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the 

specific grounds for the ruling desired. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). Because appellant 

failed to object to the evidence that he now complains about on appeal, he failed to 

preserve his complaint for appellate review. See, e.g., Wilkinson v. State, 523 

S.W.3d 818, 827 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. ref’d). Accordingly, 

we overrule appellant’s sole issue. 
3 

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

 

 /s/ Frances Bourliot

 Justice 

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jewell, and Bourliot.

Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**




In
      connection with the periodic report of Skystar Bio-Pharmaceutical Company (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Weibing
      Lu ,
      Chief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, hereby certify
      as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section
      1350
      of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
                as
                applicable, 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
                at the dates and for the periods indicated.






Date: 
      November 14, 2007


/s/
      Weibing Lu


Weibing
      Lu


Chief
      Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)




-50-
#### Thomas E. HORNADAY, Jr. v. Sherry B. HORNADAY.

No. 50263.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 10, 1978.

Barnett, Montgomery, McClintock & Cunningham, Ross Barnett, Jr., Jackson, for appellant.

Tullos & Tullos, Eugene C. Tullos, Raleigh, for appellee.

Before SMITH, P. J., and SUGG and BROOM, JJ., and JOHN C. LOVE, Jr., Commissioner.

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Michael R. Robinson, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Life TimeFitness, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theCompany as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and we have:
     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;
     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and
     c) disclosed in this report any change in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurred during the Company’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the Company’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financialreporting; and
     5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theCompany’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 4, 2004     /s/ Michael R. Robinson   Michael R. Robinson *Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer*
EXHIBIT 32.2


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sierra Resource Group, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ending  June 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Paul W. Andre,  Treasurer and Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, 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.


Date: July 20, 2007



                                        By: /s/ PAUL W. ANDRE
                                            ___________________________
                                                Paul W. Andre
                                                Treasurer and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-30159

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

DOUGLAS BEER, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 6:16-CR-107-1 

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Douglas Beer appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to 

possession of child pornography of a minor not yet 12 years of age. He contends 

that the district court’s statements at the sentencing hearing indicate that it 

plainly erred in concluding that it did not have the discretion to disagree with 

the U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 enhancements and impose a downward variance based 

on the mitigating facts and circumstances in his case. Beer maintains that a 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 19, 2017 

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-30159 Document: 00514162118 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2017
No. 17-30159

2 

downward variance was warranted because he had no criminal history, his 

offense was passive possession, and he had attempted to overcome his 

addictions to pornography and alcohol by attending individual and group 

counseling. 

As Beer concedes, he did not raise this argument in the district court 

and, therefore, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. GarciaPerez, 779 F.3d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 2015). To demonstrate plain error, Beer 

must establish a clear or obvious error that affects his substantial rights. See 

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, 

this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects 

the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.

The record indicates that the district court did not fail to recognize that 

it had the discretion to vary from the guidelines range. The district court 

considered Beer’s lengthy sentencing memorandum, his letter to the court, the 

letters written in his support, the Presentence Report, and the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors. Based on that information, the district court made an 

individualized assessment of his case and determined that a sentence slightly 

below the advisory guidelines range would be appropriate under the 

circumstances. Therefore, the record reflects that the district court did not fail 

to recognize that it had the discretion to vary from the guidelines range and 

did not commit reversible plain error when it sentenced Beer to a slight 

downward variance of 57 months of imprisonment. See United States v. Clay, 

787 F.3d 328, 332 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 601

(5th Cir. 2014). 

 AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 17-30159 Document: 00514162118 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2017
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.10

                            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 on Form 10-Q of Niku Corporation (the
"Company") for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Farzad
Dibachi, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board 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 the best of 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.




/s/ FARZAD DIBACHI
--------------------------------------
Farzad Dibachi
Chief Executive Officer

September 12, 2002

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2028 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2028

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To provide for the reinstatement of a license for a certain Federal 
                 Energy Regulatory Commission project.

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

SECTION 1. REINSTATEMENT OF LICENSE FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY 
              COMMISSION PROJECT.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified in 
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 
otherwise apply to project numbered 7307 of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, the Commission shall, on the request of the 
licensee for the project, in accordance with that section (including 
the good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of that 
section and procedures established under that section), extend the time 
required for commencement of construction of the project until December 
31, 2007.
    (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall apply to the project on 
the expiration of any extension, issued by the Commission under section 
13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806), of the time required for 
commencement of construction of the project.
    (c) Reinstatement of Terminated License.--If a license of the 
Commission for the project has been terminated before the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall--
            (1) reinstate the license effective as of the date of the 
        termination of the license; and
            (2) extend the time required for commencement of 
        construction of the project until December 31, 2007.

            Passed the Senate November 16, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2028

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To provide for the reinstatement of a license for a certain Federal 
                 Energy Regulatory Commission project.
```
256 La. 271

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Francis Aubrey CLIFTON v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary et al.

No. 50660.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 11, 1970.

In re: Francis Aubrey Clifton applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writs refused. The showing made in the application does not warrant either our original or supervisory jurisdiction.
# L_2023119EN.01015901.xml

| 5.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 119/159 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 119/159

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2023/917

of 4 May 2023

correcting the Polish language version of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 108(4) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1588 of 13 July 2015 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of horizontal State aid (1), and in particular Article 1(1), point (a), thereof,

After consulting the Advisory Committee on State aid,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Polish language version of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 (2) contains an error in Article 2, point (103e) that affects the content of the definition of a ‘small mid-cap’ undertaking, and indirectly also the scope of all the provisions which use this term. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Polish language version of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 (2) contains an error in Article 2, point (103e) that affects the content of the definition of a ‘small mid-cap’ undertaking, and indirectly also the scope of all the provisions which use this term.

| (2) | The Polish language version of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Polish language version of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

(Does not concern the English language.)

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 May 2023.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty (OJ L 187, 26.6.2014, p. 1).

2

---