alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 210 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 58728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28701]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER95-1685-008]


Vastar Power Marketing, Inc., Notice of Filing

October 24, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 23, 1997, Vastar Power Marketing, 
Inc., Tendered for filing an amendment to its Notification of Change in 
Status filed August 27, 1997.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing 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 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before November 6, 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. 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.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-28701 Filed 10-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 81 (Friday, April 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24743-24744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09951]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9008-8]

Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 04/15/2013 
Through 04/19/2013 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters

[[Page 24744]]

on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Due to EPA's agency-wide furlough day on 
Friday, May 24th and the Federal holiday on Monday, May 27th, all EISs 
must be filed with EPA by Thursday, May 23rd by 5:00 p.m. eastern time 
for publication under a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register 
for Friday, May 31st.

EIS No. 20130100, Draft EIS, USACE, CA, Placer Vineyards Specific Plan 
(SPK-1999-00737), Comment Period Ends: 06/10/2013, Contact: William 
Ness 916-557-5268.
EIS No. 20130101, Final EIS, BLM, NV, Proposed Sloan Hills Competitive 
Mineral Material Sales, Review Period Ends: 05/28/2013, Contact: Shonna 
Dooman 702-515-5174.
EIS No. 20130102, Final EIS, BLM, WY, Gateway West Transmission Line 
Project, Wyoming and Idaho, Review Period Ends: 06/28/2013, Contact: 
Walt George 307-775-6116.
EIS No. 20130103, Final EIS, NMFS, 00, Amendment 5 to the Atlantic 
Herring Fishery Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 05/28/2013, 
Contact: Carrie Nordeen 978-281-9272.
EIS No. 20130104, Draft EIS, FHWA, AZ, South Mountain Freeway (Loop 
202), Interstate 10 (Papago Freeway) to Interstate 10 (Maricopa 
Freeway), Comment Period Ends: 07/24/2013, Contact: Alan Hansen 602-
382-8964.
EIS No. 20130105, Draft EIS, FHWA, TX, US 281 from Loop 1604 to 
Borgfeld, Comment Period Ends: 07/01/2013, Contact: Mr. Salvador 
Deocampo 512-536-5950.
EIS No. 20130106, Final EIS, NMFS, 00, Amendment 5a to the 2006 
Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, Review 
Period Ends: 05/28/2013, Contact: Peter Cooper 301-427-8503.
EIS No. 20130107, Final EIS, NRCS, WY, Henrys Fork Salinity Control 
Project Plan and Irrigation Improvements, Review Period Ends: 05/28/
2013, Contact: Astrid Martinez 307-233-6750.
EIS No. 20130108, Final EIS, USA, HI, Construction and Operation of a 
Platoon Battle Course at Pohakuloa Training Area, Review Period Ends: 
05/28/2013, Contact: Linda B. McDowell 210-466-1593.

    Dated: April 23, 2013.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2013-09951 Filed 4-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
# L_2005127EN.01000301.xml

| 20.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 127/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 127/3

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 759/2005

of 19 May 2005

applying a reduction coefficient to refund certificates for goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, as provided for by Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 of 6 December 1993 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 of 13 July 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), and in particular Article 8(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Member States' notifications pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 indicate that the total amount of applications received reaches EUR 93 532 277 while the available amount for the tranche of refund certificates as referred to in Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 is EUR 59 655 557. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Member States' notifications pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 indicate that the total amount of applications received reaches EUR 93 532 277 while the available amount for the tranche of refund certificates as referred to in Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 is EUR 59 655 557.

| (2) | A reduction coefficient shall be calculated on the basis of Article 8(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000. Such coefficient should therefore be applied to amounts requested in the form of refund certificates for use from 1 June 2005 as established in Article 8(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A reduction coefficient shall be calculated on the basis of Article 8(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000. Such coefficient should therefore be applied to amounts requested in the form of refund certificates for use from 1 June 2005 as established in Article 8(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The amounts for applications of refund certificates for use from 1 June 2005 are subject to a reduction coefficient of 0,363.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 May 2005.

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

Done at Brussels, 19 May 2005.

For the Commission

Günter VERHEUGEN

Vice-President

---

(1)  
  OJ L 318, 20.12.1993, p. 18. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2580/2000 (OJ L 298, 25.11.2000, p. 5).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 177, 15.7.2000, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 886/2004 (OJ L 168, 1.5.2004, p. 14).

2

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

THOMAS CRISSMAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 06-63 Erie

v. )

)

SERGEANT GRAHAM, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This civil rights action was received by the Clerk of Court on March 14, 2006, and

was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report and

recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and

Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 9], filed on

August 1, 2006, recommended that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed for failure to

prosecute. The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file

objections. Service was made on Plaintiff by certified mail and on Defendants. Plaintiff

filed objections on August 16, 2006 [Doc. No. 11]. After de novo review of the motion

and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation and

objections thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 17th day of August, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED for failure to

prosecute since Plaintiff has failed to effectuate proper service under the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 9] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on August 1, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00063-SJM-SPB Document 12 Filed 08/17/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Charles F. SMYTH v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 1489.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Feb. 1, 1937.

Long, Depew, Stanley, Weigand & Hook, of Wichita, Kan., for appellant.

S. S. Alexander, U. S. Atty., of Topeka, Kan.

Before LEWIS and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

*1018PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed on authority of Dye et al. v. The Farm Mortgage Inv. Company of Topeka, Kan. (C.C.A.10) 70 F.(2d) 514. -
255 La. 1092

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Percy Joseph MARTIN.

No. 50545.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1970.

In re: Percy Joseph Martin applying for remedial writs.

The application is denied. The showing made by applicant does not warrant the relief sought.
#### Andrew James SMITH, Appellant, v. James MORGAN, Director of Public Safety, and the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, Appellees.

No. 73-433.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 17, 1973.

Enrique Escarraz, III, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

James P. Ogden, St. Petersburg, for ap-pellees.

COWART, JOE A., Jr., Associate Judge.

This is an appeal from the denial of an amended petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

*13The appellant was charged with violation of a St. Petersburg municipal ordinance, signed a waiver of counsel form, pled guilty and was sentenced to 10 days confinement. The application for habeas corpus, and this appeal from its denial, are primarily based on the argument that Ar-gersinger v. Hamlin, 1972, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530, requires counsel in misdemeanor cases and that the waiver of counsel in this case was not knowingly and intelligently made because it was executed in the presence of a city prosecutor and not before the trial judge in open court. The order appealed was entered only after the circuit judge granted an evi-dentiary hearing and found that, in fact, the appellant had knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. This factual finding comes to this court with the usual presumption in its favor.

For the principle that the trial judge has the duty to determine the volun-tariness of waiver of counsel, the appellant cites Mason v. State, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 76, Donald v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 453, and Love v. State, Fla.App.1972, 270 So.2d 408. This is a correct principle of law but contemplates the usual situation where the first consideration of counsel for the accused was when he appeared before the trial judge and does not mean that counsel for the trial stage cannot be lawfully waived in any other manner, such as out of court before trial. Here, since the matter of counsel had been considered by the accused and voluntarily and intelligently waived by him b'efore his appearance before the trial judge, there was no requirement that the judge pursue or review the question on his own motion.1 Appellant never presented the question of the legality of his waiver to the trial judge. This question should have been first presented to the judge who relied on the waiver and direct appeal taken to the circuit court from any adverse finding.

The order denying the' writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.

MANN, C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.

1

. Of course, officers seeking a statement from the accused and complying with Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, have been required to offer and furnish counsel or obtain a proper waiver and now under RCrP Rule - 3.111 (c) (1) and (2), 33 F.S.A., booking officers are required to extend an offer of counsel and county judges at First Appearance consider appointment of counsel under RCrP Rule 3.130(b) (2) (ii). Of course, these procedural rules do not apply to a municipal court but illustrate common examples of consideration of waiver or furnishing of counsel by someone other than the trial judge.
#### CITY OF MIAMI, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA REALTY AND MANAGEMENT CORP., Respondent.

No. 70-304.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 2, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                                   SCHEDULE

                                 Option Notice


TO: Kevin James Bostridge (the "Grantor")

Take notice that the rights of Transmedia Australia Holdings Pty Ldt (the
"Grantee") pursuant to a Call Option dated the     day of            199  and
entered into between the Grantor and the Grantee to exercise the Call Option
contained in that Deed are exercised by this notice.

The shares the subject of the Call Option are to be transferred as follows:

The Grantor nominates the following place and time for Settlement of the Call
Option:


Place: Sydney, Australia

Time:        am/pm on the 6 day of Nov 1997

DATED the      day of           19  .
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28538]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-4410-000]


Detroit Edison Company; Notice of Filing

October 16, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 24, 1997, Detroit Edison Company 
tendered for filing an amendment in the above-referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing 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 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before October 28, 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. 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.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-28538 Filed 10-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.43

                     THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This Third Amendment to Employment Agreement is entered into as of this 1st
day of June, 2002 by and between BiznessOnline.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company") and Daniel J. Sullivan, an individual with an address at 2375
Apple Ridge Circle, Manasquan, New Jersey 08736 ("Employee").

                                  INTRODUCTION

     The Company and Employee entered into that certain Employment Agreement
dated as of January 25, 1999 as amended by that certain First Amendment to
Employment Agreement dated as of February 1, 2000 and (ii) Second Amendment to
Employment Agreement dated December 31, 2001 (collectively, the "Employment
Agreement"), pursuant to which the Company employed Employee as its Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer.

     The Employee possess skills and knowledge critical to the day-to-day and
continued operations of the Company and the Company desires to retain Employee's
services and considers such retention critical to the Company's continued
operations. In order to induce Employee to continue his Employment with the
Company, the Company and Employee desire amend the Employment Agreement as
hereinafter set forth.

                                    AGREEMENT

     In consideration of the premises and mutual promises hereinbelow set forth,
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:

I.   At the end of Section 1 of the Agreement, the following sentence is
inserted:

      Employee's place of business shall be in Wall, New Jersey. Employee
      acknowledges that he may occasionally be required to travel to the
      Company's affiliate's offices in New York and Connecticut; provided
      however, that Employee shall not be required to travel more than one day
      per week.

II. Except as modified herein, the Employment Agreement is hereby ratified,
confirmed and approved in all respects.

<Page>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date
first written above.


ATTEST:                                       BIZNESSONLINE.COM, INC.

/s/ Jennifer L. Sheridan                      By:  /s/ Mark E. Munro
---------------------------------                -----------------------------
                                                  Mark E. Munro, President



WITNESS:                                      EMPLOYEE:



/s/ Jennifer L. Sheridan                          /s/ Daniel J. Sullivan
---------------------------------             --------------------------------
                                              Daniel J. Sullivan

                                        2
AFS-13-188-E March 26, 2013

Exemption No. 10241A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-11883

Mr. L. S. Dibble Director of Plans, Policy and Programs U.S. Department of the Army Aeronautical Services Agency Fort Belvoir, VA 22060

Dear Mr. Dibble:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 10241. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect.



### The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated January 23, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of U.S. Department of the Army (U.S. Army) for an extension of Exemption No. 10241. That exemption from § 91.169(a)(2) and (c) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows the U.S. Army to file inst rument flight rules flight plans in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the U.S. Army.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to U.S. Army.

Our Decision2

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10241 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10241 to April 30, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service

Enclosure
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-60218

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DESMOND BOWEN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:18-CR-96-1

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Desmond Bowen appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea 

for possession of ammunition by a felon. He argues that the 120-month, aboveguidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court 

placed undue weight on his criminal history. We affirm.

The record reflects that the district court made an informed, 

individualized assessment after considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, 

 

* 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

October 21, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-60218 Document: 00515166593 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2019
No. 19-60218

2

the statutory sentencing provisions, the guidelines range, the facts in the 

presentence report, and the arguments of the parties. We owe deference to the 

district court’s determination, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50-53 

(2007), and discern no abuse of the court’s discretion. Bowen has a history of 

offenses involving firearms and reckless behavior; it was proper for the district 

court to consider this, and reasonable for the court to conclude that he

presented a risk to others. Cf. United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 475-76 (5th 

Cir. 2010); United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 708-10 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Although the 120-month sentence is 63 months greater than the top of the 

guidelines range, we have upheld similar or greater variances in the past. E.g., 

Key, 599 F.3d at 475-76; Smith, 440 F.3d at 708-10. That Bowen disagrees 

with how the court balanced the factors before it is not a sufficient ground for 

reversal. See United States v. Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir. 2016). We 

note as well that Bowen asks us to reconsider binding precedent in this area of 

law, an invitation we decline. The judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 19-60218 Document: 00515166593 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/21/2019
Exhibit 32.1

 

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

The undersigned, David Uppal, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Secretary of American United Gold Corp. (the "Company"), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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

 

Date: May 10, 2006

/s/ David Uppal

David Uppal

Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer