alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 58954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28897]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-886-000]


Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners, L.P.; Notice of 
Issuance of Order

October 28, 1997.
    Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners, L.P. (Brooklyn) filed an 
application for authorization to sell power at market-based rates, and 
for certain waivers and authorizations. In particular, Brooklyn 
requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 
34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liabilities 
by Brooklyn. On October 15, 1997, the Commission issued an Order 
Conditionally Accepting for Filing Proposed Market-Based Rates (Order), 
in the above-docketed proceeding.
    The Commission's October 15, 1997 Order granted the request for 
blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the conditions found in 
Ordering Paragraphs (D), (E), and (G):
    (D) Within 30 days of the date of this order, any person desiring 
to be heard or to protest the Commission's blanket approval of 
issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities by Brooklyn 
should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214.
    (E) Absent a request to be heard within the period set forth in 
Ordering Paragraph (D) above, Brooklyn is hereby authorized, pursuant 
to section 204 of the FPA, to issue securities and assume obligations 
or liabilities as guarantor, indorser, surety or otherwise in respect 
of any security of another person; provided that such issue or 
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of 
Brooklyn, compatible with the public interest, and reasonably necessary 
or appropriate for such purposes.
    (G) The Commission reserves the right to modify this other to 
require a further showing that neither public nor private interests 
will be adversely affected by continued Commission approval of 
Brooklyn's issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities * * *.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is November 14, 1997.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-28897 Filed 10-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: March 17, 2016 521090

________________________________ In the Matter of KHARY BEKKA, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: January 19, 2016 Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose and Clark, JJ.

__________ Khary Bekka, Ossining, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. When a correction officer approached petitioner's cell, she observed him masturbating. After ordering him to stop, petitioner continued and made sexually suggestive comments to the officer. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with engaging in lewd conduct, refusing a direct order and interfering with an employee. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found not guilty of interfering with an employee, but guilty of the remaining charges. This determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, resulting in-2- 521090

this CPLR article 78 proceeding. 1 We confirm. Petitioner was afforded a fair hearing. Contrary to petitioner's claims, the Hearing Officer did allow petitioner to question the author of the misbehavior report as to whether she had ever previously observed such behavior by petitioner, and the Hearing Officer did not act improperly by limiting petitioner's further questioning of the witness to issues related to matters relevant to the incident in question (see Matter of Fero v Prack, 110 AD3d 1128, 1129 [2013]; Matter of Toliver v Commissioner of Corr. & Community Supervision, 104 AD3d 981, 982 [2013]). Further, the fact that the Hearing Officer rejected petitioner's testimony is not indicative of bias, nor is there anything in the record supporting petitioner's claim that the determination flowed from any alleged bias (see Matter of Inoa v Smith, 115 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2014]; Matter of White v Fischer, 95 AD3d 1582, 1583 [2012]). McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.

1 Although the petition raised the issue of substantial evidence and, accordingly, the proceeding was properly transferred to this Court, petitioner has abandoned such argument by failing to raise it in his brief (see Matter of Davila v Prack, 113 AD3d 978, 978 n [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 904 [2014]).-3- 521090

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          10,306
<SECURITIES>                                    14,877
<RECEIVABLES>                                       86
<ALLOWANCES>                                         8
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,508
<PP&E>                                           4,885
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,854
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,588
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,300
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           275
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,588
<SALES>                                            676
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   676
<CGS>                                              910
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,841
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   6
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,755)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,755)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,755)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.32)


</TABLE>
|   | 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:  January 12, 2012 | By:    | /s/ James Kedrowski                     |   |
|                              |   | James Kedrowski                         |   |
|                              |   | Interim Chief Executive Officer and Director |   |
|                              |   |                                         |   |

|   |   |                                                  |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | By:    | /s/ Michael Kalb                                 |   |
|   |   | Michael Kalb                                          |   |
|   |   | Group Vice President, Interim Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   |   |                                                  |   |
EXHIBIT
32.2




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 Remedent, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the Company.




Date:
            February
      23, 2009By:
            /s/
      Stephen RossName:  Stephen
      RossTitle:  Chief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Remedent, Inc. and will be retained by
Remedent, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
.Ma.rt.i,n.,MJch~eJ (,()ST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Sub jed: 

To whom it may concern: 

Loren Jackson sr. <jloren83@yahoo.com> 

Friday, July 06, 2012 4:51 AM 

EAS (OST) 

Comment on EAS Service at Kake, Alaska DOT-OST-2008-0217 

I am writing this letter of support for Wings of Alaska's returning service between Kake & Juneau. Kake needs 

a much better rate in these hard economy times. Air Excursions is way overpriced! 

Sincerely, 

Loren Jackson Sr. 

~; .......
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

**FORM N-PX**

**ANNUAL REPORT OF PROXY VOTING RECORD OF**

**DWS Municipal Income Trust**

Investment Company Act file number  811-05655

DWS Municipal Income Trust

(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)

 

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY  10154

(Address of principal executive offices)             (Zip code)

John Millette

Secretary

One Beacon Street

Boston, MA  02108-3106

(Name and address of agent for service)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code:  617-295-1000

Date of fiscal year end:  11/30

Date of reporting period:  7/1/07-6/30/08

Form N-PX is to be used by a registered management investment company, other than a small business investment company registered on Form N-5 (§§ 239.24 and 274.5 of this chapter), to file reports with the Commission, not later than August 31 of each year, containing the registrant's proxy voting record for the most recent twelve-month period ended June 30, pursuant to section 30 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and rule 30b1-4 thereunder (17 CFR 270.30b1-4). The Commission may use the information provided on Form N-PX in its regulatory, disclosure review, inspection, and policymaking roles.

A registrant is required to disclose the information specified by Form N-PX, and the Commission will make this information public. A registrant is not required to respond to the collection of information contained in Form N-PX unless the Form displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") control number. Please direct comments concerning the accuracy of the information collection burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing the burden to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. The OMB has reviewed this collection of information under the clearance requirements of 44 U.S.C. § 3507.

 
```

******************************* FORM N-Px REPORT *******************************

ICA File Number: 811-05655
Reporting Period: 07/01/2007 - 06/30/2008
DWS Municipal Income Trust

====================== A      DWS MUNICIPAL INCOME TRUST =======================

NO PROXIES RECEIVED OR VOTED FOR THIS FUND

========== END NPX REPORT
```

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 58983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28951]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; Project Deeplook

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 18, 1997, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Project DeepLook has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the 
parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 
Act, the identities of the parties are: BP Exploration & Oil Inc., 
Houston, TX; Chevron Petroleum Technology Co., Houston, TX; Conoco 
Inc., Houston, TX; Mobil Technology Co., Dallas, TX; Shell Oil Co., 
Houston, TX; Texaco Group Inc., Houston, TX; Union Oil Co. of 
California, Sugar Land, TX; Landmark Graphics Corp., Austin, TX; 
Schlumberger-Doll Research, Ridgefield, CT; Western Atlas 
International, Inc., Houston, TX; and CGG American Services, Inc., 
Houston, TX. The objectives of the venture are to accelerate the 
development of fluid imaging tools intended to increase the recovery 
factors of hydrocarbon reservoirs. The venture will strive to develop 
technical advances of broad applicability across a wide segment of the 
producing community, drawing on the resources of both producing 
companies and service suppliers.
    Participation is open to all interested parties who execute a 
participation agreement and make required contributions. Information 
regarding participation in the Group may be obtained from Edward T. 
Stoessel, BP Exploration & Oil Co., 200 Westlake Park Blvd., Houston, 
TX 77079 and Richard J. Goetsch, Esq., BP America Inc., 200 Public Sq., 
11-C, Cleveland, OH 44114.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 97-28951 Filed 10-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
No. 00-7086.

#### Victory *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 210 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28808]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

12 CFR Part 615

RIN 3052-AB75


Funding and Fiscal Affairs, Loan Policies and Operations, and 
Funding Operations; Cumulative Voting; Effective Date

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.

ACTION: Notice of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) published a final rule 
under part 615 on September 24, 1997 (62 FR 49907). The final rule 
amends the regulations to provide that a Farm Credit Bank (FCB or bank) 
may eliminate cumulative voting in director elections with the consent 
of 75 percent of the bank's association shareholders. In accordance 
with 12 U.S.C. 2252, the effective date of the final rule is 30 days 
from the date of publication in the Federal Register during which 
either or both Houses of Congress are in session. Based on the records 
of the sessions of Congress, the effective date of the regulations is 
October 30, 1997.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The regulation amending 12 CFR part 615 published on 
September 24, 1997 (62 FR 49907) is effective October 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gaylon J. Dykstra, Policy Analyst, Policy Development and Risk Control, 
Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703) 883-4498;

      or

Rebecca S. Orlich, Senior Attorney, Office of General Counsel, Farm 
Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703) 883-4020, TDD (703) 
883-4444.

(12 U.S.C. 2252(a) (9) and (10))

    Dated: October 27, 1997.
Floyd Fithian,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 97-28808 Filed 10-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors 

Sunrise Telecom Incorporated: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (File Nos. 333-125128,333-61596, 333-43270, 333-96689, 333-107471 and 333-115722) on Form S-8 of Sunrise Telecom Incorporated of our report dated September 30, 2008 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Sunrise Telecom Incorporated and subsidiaries asof December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007, whichreport appears in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of Sunrise Telecom Incorporated. 

 

Our report dated September 30, 2008 refers to an accounting change as a result of the adoption of SFAS 123R, *Share-Based Payment*, and FIN 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Incomes Taxes, an Interpretation of SFAS109*, effective January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2007, respectively. 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

 

Mountain View, California 

October 2, 2008
259 La. 68

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Helen NELSON v. Rufus S. HALL, Warden, Louisiana Correctional Institute for Women.

No. 51530.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 24, 1971.

In re: Helen Nelson applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ granted. An evidentiary hearing is granted to be held by the trial Judge on the basis of the application to this court, limited to the question of the denial of applicant’s right to appeal.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR 6/30/99 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          80,837
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,671
<ALLOWANCES>                                       415
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,615
<PP&E>                                           2,703
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,608
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,478
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,888
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    87,608
<SALES>                                          3,232
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,232
<CGS>                                            1,135
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,135
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,768
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (471)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,200)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,200)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,200)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.34)


</TABLE>
#### Warren Elwood FORBES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-109.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 31, 1970.

Warren Elwood Forbes, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

JOHNSON, Chief Judge.

Appellant was convicted of possession of a weapon while an inmate of the State prison at Raiford, and sentenced to four years by Judge Murphree of the Eight Judicial Circuit. The appeal is from an order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and set aside judgment.

The appellant has requested in writing that this court render its opinion from the record and without brief of the appellant or oral argument.

We have reviewed the record of the trial of this appellant. He specifically requested that the Public Defender and an assistant be precluded from representing him. The trial court refused to let the defendant choose an attorney, but did appoint an “outside” attorney to represent the defendant. Motion for change of venue was filed by the new attorney but was denied. Then in open court the defendant, assisted by counsel, who was commended by the defendant for his diligent work on the case, changed his plea from not guilty to guilty. The trial court went into considerable detail at that time as to the voluntariness of the plea of guilty and we are convinced he was adequately represented at that time.

The motion to vacate did not contain any meritorious grounds and we are of the opinion and so hold that the trial court was correct.

The order appealed from is therefore affirmed.

WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.