alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25136]

[[Page 49677]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP97-733-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

September 17, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 8, 1997, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124-1000, filed 
in Docket No. CP97-733-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205, and 
157.212, of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 
CFR 157.205, 157.212) for authorization to install and operate a new 
delivery point, located in Irion County, Texas under Northern's blanket 
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-401-000 pursuant to Section 7 of 
the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request that is 
on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Northern states that is requests authority to install and operate 
the proposed delivery point to accommodate interruptible natural gas 
deliveries to West Texas Gas, Inc. (WTG). The proposed volumes to be 
delivered are 500 MMBtu on a peak day and 135,284 MMBtu on an annual 
basis. Northern asserts that WTG has requested the proposed delivery 
point to provide compressor fuel.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the National Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest 
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed 
therefor, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized 
effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a 
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time 
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as 
an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the National 
Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25136 Filed 9-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
SERVED: April 27,2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MONARCH SKY, LLC 

Docket NO. FAA 2014- 1121 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On January 9, 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") 

filed a Complaint. On December 22, 2014: Monarch Sky, LLC. (hereinafter "Monarch'') 

filed a Request for Hearing. 

On April 21, 2015, the FAA requested its Complaint be withdrawn. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing. an agency 

attorney may ~ithdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE. the within filed Request to Withdraw Complaint having been 

read and considered, it be and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

I. Complainant's Request to Withdraw Complaint be and is hereby granted; 

and 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment- Service List 
. 

J 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI0001 

President 

Monarch Sky, LLC, Respondent 

1420 Jet Stream Dr., Ste. 1 05 

Henderson, NV 98052 

President 

Monarch Sky, LLC, Re~pondenl 

500 E. Cheyenne A venue 

North Las Vegas. NV 89030 

Cheryl M. Jones, Complainant 's Counsel 

Senior Attorney 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

222 West ih Avenue #14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

TEL: 907-271-5273 

FAX: 907-271-2800 

ONE COPY 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin. Administrative Law .IudKe 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Aven·ue, S.E. (El1-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FAA-2014-1121 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

I Service was by u.s. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier. use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration. 600 Independence Avenue. S.W .. Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W 1000. Washington. 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DUSTIN FOCKLER, )

Plaintiff, )

)

Vs. ) Civil Action No. 05-123 E

)

UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE, )

Defendant. )

O R D E R 

AND NOW, this 28th day of April, 2006, the Plaintiff having filed a Motion 

to Amend Complaint or in the alternative a Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss the Complaint 

(Document No. 18) 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motion is DENIED, as the Court adopted 

the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and dismissed the Plaintiff’s

Complaint on April 28, 2006. 

 S/Sean J. McLaughlin 

Sean J. McLaughlin 

United States District Judge

cc: all parties of record

Case 1:05-cv-00123-SJM-SPB Document 19 Filed 04/28/06 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of T REIT, Inc. (the“Company”) hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:          (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on    Form 10-Q of our    company for the period ended March 31, 2006 (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           (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of our company.     /s/ Scott D. Peters           Scott D. Peters *Chief Financial Officer* *(principal financial officer)*Date: May 10, 2006     A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.     The foregoing certification is being furnished with theCompany’sForm 10-Q for theperiod ended March 31, 2006 pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the Company, whether made before or after the datehereof, regardless of any general information language in suchfiling.
### Ground-water aspects of the lower Henrys Fork region, eastern Idaho

By: E. G. CrosthwaiteMaurice John MundorffEugene H. Walker

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1879C

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
* 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.

REVISED AUGUST 23, 2011

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50987

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BERNARDINO SAUCEDO-RIOS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:09-CR-136-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bernardino Saucedo-Rios appeals his guilty plea conviction of illegal

reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that

the magistrate judge violated Rule 11(b)(1)(D) of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure when he failed to inform Saucedo-Rios that Saucedo-Rios had “the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 22, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 09-50987

2

right to be represented by counsel--and if necessary have the court appoint

counsel--at trial and at every other stage of the proceeding.” 

Because Saucedo-Rios did not object in district court to the magistrate

judge’s failure to comply with Rule 11, we review for plain error, which requires

a showing of clear or obvious error that affects substantial rights. See United

States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59 (2002). In evaluating whether an alleged Rule

11 error affects a defendant’s substantial rights, this court looks to whether

there exists a “reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have

entered the plea.” United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004).

Saucedo-Rios’s argument is unavailing. The rearraignment transcript

reflects that the magistrate judge told Saucedo-Rios that by pleading guilty he

was giving up “the right to have the attorney present at trial and with you in

any subsequent hearings or proceedings” and that Saucedo-Rios confirmed that

he understood his rights. Thus, although the magistrate’s phrasing may have

constituted a minor deviation from the text of Rule11(b)(1)(D), it did not

constitute a violation of Rule 11. Furthermore, although the magistrate judge

failed to inform Saucedo that he had the right to court-appointed counsel,

Saucedo was, in fact, represented by court-appointed counsel throughout the

proceedings in the district court. See United States v. Sanchez, 650 F.2d 745,

748 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding that Rule 11 “limits the necessity for such a charge

to situations where the defendant is not represented by an attorney at the plea

proceeding”). Finally, there is simply no indication in the record that there

exists a “reasonable probability that, butfor the error, [Saucedo] would not have

entered the plea.” Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 83.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26603]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM97-1-142-001]


Texas-Ohio Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Refund Report

October 2, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 29, 1997, Texas-Ohio Pipeline, Inc. 
(TOP) tendered for filing a refund report in Docket No. TM97-1-142-000 
related to the correction of its Annual charge Adjustment (ACA) 
surcharge for the period since October 1, 1996.
    TOP states that it is filing this report and has made a refund in 
compliance with the Letter Order issued August 19, 1997 in the above 
referenced docket, by Kevin P. Madden, Director, Office of Pipeline 
Regulation.
    TOP states that copies of TOP's filing have been served on each of 
its jurisdictional customers.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests should be filed 
on or before October 9, 1997. 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. 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. 97-26603 Filed 10-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 12
                              Matrix Bancorp, Inc.

                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                                   (Unaudited)

                             (Dollars in thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        Year Ended December 31,
                                                     2001         2000           1999          1998          1997
                                                  -----------  ------------  ------------   ------------  ------------
<S>                                             <C>          <C>           <C>            <C>           <C>

A.   Matrix Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries
     (consolidated)
Earnings:
     1.  Income before income taxes .........   $    12,787  $      6,501  $     17,057   $     13,389  $     13,297
     2.  Plus interest expense (A) ..........        65,884        68,089        44,234         36,822        18,471
                                                  -----------  ------------  ------------   ------------  ------------
     3.  Earnings including interest on              78,671        74,590        61,291         50,211        31,768
         deposits
     4.  Less interest on deposits...........        34,872        26,275        21,589         16,221         8,376
                                                  -----------  ------------  ------------   ------------  ------------
     5.  Earnings excluding interest on         $    43,799  $     48,315  $     39,702   $     33,990  $     23,392
         deposits
                                                  ===========  ============  ============   ============  ============
Fixed Charges:
     6.  Including interest on deposits
         excluding capitalized interest .....   $    66,119  $     68,218  $     44,279   $     36,901  $     18,551
     7.  Less interest on deposits (Line 4) .        34,872        26,275        21,589         16,221         8,376
                                                  -----------  ------------  ------------   ------------  ------------
     8.  Excluding interest on deposits .....   $    31,247  $     41,943  $     22,690   $     20,680  $     10,175
                                                  ===========  ============  ============   ============  ============
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges:
         Including interest on deposits
         (Line 3 divided by Line 6) .......            1.19x         1.09x         1.38x          1.36x         1.71x
         Excluding interest on deposits
         (Line 5 divided by Line 8) .......            1.40x         1.15x         1.75x          1.64x         2.30x

<FN>

------------
(A) Includes amounts representing the estimated interest component of net rental
payments.
</FN>
</TABLE>
#### NORTH PALM BEACH UTILITIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Lake Properties Development Limited, a limited partnership, North Palm Beach Construction Company, a Florida corporation and North Palm Beach Properties, Inc., a Florida corporation, formerly known as North Palm Beach, Inc., Appellants, v. John D. MacARTHUR, Appellee.

No. 69-49.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 1, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


I, James Clark, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Mind2Market, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of September 30, 2002; and

     c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

     a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  August 24, 2004

/s/ James Clark
- -----------------------
James Clark, CEO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-12-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          31,665                   2,837
<SECURITIES>                                    28,582                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,269                   1,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,963                   4,876
<PP&E>                                           3,223                   1,717
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,470)                    (539)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,212                   6,054
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,722                   5,455
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                  10,741
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            18                       1
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,042                (10,872)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,060                   6,054
<SALES>                                         21,187                   8,254
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,187                   8,254
<CGS>                                            2,141                     512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,424                  13,205
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,634)                      33
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,744)                 (5,496)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.49)                  (0.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2925

___________

Mark B. Price, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

McDonnell Douglas Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 29, 2000

Filed: July 6, 2000

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mark B. Price appeals the adverse grant of summary judgment on his Americans

with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim against his employer, McDonnell Douglas

Corporation (MDC). Having reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude

the grant of summary judgment to MDC was proper. Price also contends the district

court erroneously failed to address his Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) claim.

While Price did move to amend his original complaint to include an MHRA claim, the

motion was dismissed without prejudice and Price failed to refile. Even assuming the

MHRA claim was properly before the district court, MHRA claims are analyzed under
-2-

the same standard as ADA claims, see Treanor v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 200

F.3d 570, 574 (8th Cir. 2000), and "resolution of the [ADA] claim also disposed of the

state claim," Schuler v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 169 F.3d 1171, 1172 (8th Cir. 1999).

We thus affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.