alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5388-5389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2774]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP96-727-001]


Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

January 30, 1997.
    Take notice that on January 23, 1997, Kern River Gas Transmission 
Company (Kern River), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to 
become effective February 17, 1997:

[[Page 5389]]

First Revised Volume No. 1

Third Revised Sheet No. 127
Original Sheet No. 127-A

    Kern River states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
the Commission's Order Authorizing Blanket Construction (Order) issued 
on December 23, 1996 in Docket No. CP96-727-000. In the instant filing, 
Kern River is modifying its tariff to define the circumstances under 
which Kern River will offer to make contributions in aid of 
construction available to shippers who construct facilities needed to 
take delivery of gas from, or to measure gas delivered by, Kern River.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said filing should on or before February 7, 1997, file 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene or a protest in accordance 
with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211) and the Regulations under the 
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests with the Commission will 
be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken 
but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. 
Any person wishing to become a party to a proceeding must file a motion 
to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules. Copies of this 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-2774 Filed 2-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2844]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, and 78

[FRL-5684-6]
RIN 2060-AF43, AF46, and AF47


Acid Rain Program; Permits, Allowance System, Sulfur Dioxide Opt-
Ins, Continuous Emission Monitoring, Excess Emissions, and Appeal 
Procedures

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of extension of comment period on proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On December 27, 1996 (61 FR 68340), the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a proposed rule revising the 
permits, allowance system, sulfur dioxide opt-ins, continuous emission 
monitoring, excess emissions, and appeal procedures rules. The proposed 
rule streamlines the Acid Rain Program while still ensuring achievement 
of its statutory goals of reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides 
emissions and the adverse health and ecological impacts of acidic 
deposition. EPA is extending the comment period so that comments on the 
proposed rule are due on February 10, 1997.

DATES: Comments on the December 27, 1996, proposed rule must be 
received on or before February 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted in duplicate to EPA 
Air Docket Section (6102), Waterside Mall, Room M1500, 1st Floor, 401 M 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
    Docket. Docket No. A-95-56 containing supporting information used 
to develop the proposal is available for public inspection and copying 
from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays, at EPA's Air Docket Section at the 
above address. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Barylski, at (202) 233-9074, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Acid Rain 
Division (6204J), Washington D.C. (concerning revisions of parts 73 and 
75); Dwight C. Alpern, Attorney-advisor, at (202) 233-9151 (same 
address) (concerning all other revisions); or the Acid Rain Hotline, at 
(202) 233-9620.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 24, 1997, EPA received a request 
that the period for submission of comments on the December 27, 1996, 
proposed rule be extended for 14 more days. EPA has considered the 
extension request as well as the importance of completing this 
rulemaking expeditiously. In light of these considerations, EPA extends 
the comment period to February 10, 1997.

    Dated: January 28, 1997.
Brian J. McLean,
Director, Acid Rain Program, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of 
Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 97-2844 Filed 2-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          57,027
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,178
<ALLOWANCES>                                       176
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,998
<PP&E>                                           3,958
<DEPRECIATION>                                     176
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,385
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,363
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         13
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,971
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,385
<SALES>                                          2,577
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,577
<CGS>                                            1,054
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,054
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,479
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   112
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  47
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7,749)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (7,749)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (7,749)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.27)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7267
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PAUL J. GIBSON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-52-NN, CA-96-13-4) Submitted: May 30, 1997 Decided: June 16, 1997 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul J. Gibson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Gibson , Nos. CR-92-52-NN, CA-96-13-4 (E.D. Va. Aug. 1, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for release pending review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of THE FLORIDA BAR, Petition to Amend Integration Rule.

No. 39700.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1, 1970.

Edward J. Atkins, Miami, and Robert B. Kane, Tallahassee, for The Florida Bar, petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the petition of The Florida Bar to amend Article XVII of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar and oral argument in open court pursuant to notice duly published, it is ordered:

Article XVII of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar be and the same is hereby amended by striking all of the present Article XVII and inserting in lieu thereof a new Article XVII reading as follows, viz:

Article XVII CLIENTS’ SECURITY FUND

1. The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar may create and maintain a separate fund within The Florida Bar for monetary relief of persons who suffer losses by reason of misappropriation, embezzlement or other wrongful taking or conversion by a member of The Florida Bar of money or other property that comes into his possession or control by reason of an attorney and client relationship.

Payment of claims against said fund shall be made by The Florida Bar only after appropriate investigation. Payments from said fund will not ordinarily be made while the lawyer guilty of the misappropriation remains a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. All payments from said fund may be made or withheld or made in such amounts as the Board, in its discretion, may direct.

The Florida Bar or its Board of Governors may take assignments of the causes of action of claimants as a condition to said payments. Recoveries or re-payments to the Board on account of payments from said Fund will be restored to the Fund.

2. The Board of Governors may allocate from the annual dues of the members of The Florida Bar not more than $10.00 per member per annum to a Clients’ Security Fund.

3. This Article shall become effective instanter and shall govern all claims now pending or hereafter filed with the Board of Governors.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., DREW, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., and MASON, Circuit Judge, concur.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center

**Waterfowl Identification in the Central Flyway**

##       White-Fronted Goose (Specklebelly, Tiger Breast)    

----

**Sexes Similar**
****

**Body:** Medium-sized goose, 4 1/2 - 7 pounds, 27-30 inches     long. Grayish brown. Adult characterized from immature by black barring on     breast and white on face. Bill yellow-gold with adult showing some pink at     base and tip. Feet yellow-orange. **Voice:** High-pitched *ke-lee-lee-lee***In Flight:** Yellow-orange feet and black-barred breast in     adult evident.   

****

----

Previous Section
Return to Contents
Next Section

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey		URL: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/waterfwl/whtefrnt.htm		Page Contact Information: Webmaster		Page Last Modified: Thursday, 03-Aug-2006 11:32:16 EDT		Reston, VA [vaww54]
#### Mabry B. WRENCH, etc., Appellant, v. Adell KATZ, Appellee.

No. 70-666.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 19, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES KEITT, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 04-362 Erie

v. )

)

UNITED STATES PAROLE )

COMMISSION, et al., )

)

RespondentS. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This habeas corpus action was received by the Clerk of Court on December 13,

2004, 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. 13], filed on May

16, 2006, recommended that Petitioner’s Petition [Doc. No. 1] be denied. The parties

were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file objections. Service was

made on Petitioner by certified mail and on Respondents. Objections were filed by

Petitioner on June 5, 2006 [Doc. No. 16]. Respondents filed a response to Petitioner’s

objections on June 29, 2006 [Doc. No. 19]. After de novo review of the petition and

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

response thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus [Doc. No. 1] is DENIED. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 13] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on May 16, 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 1:04-cv-00362-SJM-SPB Document 20 Filed 07/11/06 Page 1 of 1
### C.16	Request for Time Extension

*To be written by the Applicant’s regional or state office, or FHWA Tribal Coordinator*

Date

Division Director

Federal Highway Administration

[Division name]

[Address]

[City, State, Zip]

Re:/Subject: Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads

           		Time Extension Request Letter No: (number), (ERFO Disaster Number )

           		(event name i.e. 2010 June Flooding), (event dates)          

Dear [Division Director name]:

The [Applicant name] requests a [time] extension for approved ERFO site [site location] which resulted from disaster number [disaster number].

Please see the attached table for justification statement and dates of major milestones.

If you have any further questions, please contact [name], [title], at [telephone number].

	Sincerely,

		Signature			

													[*Name*]

						[*Title*]

Attachment

cc: FLHD ERFO Coordinator; (BIA Regional Office or FHWA Tribal Coordinator if applicable) **
#### Mary Ann TRACHSEL and Gerld E. Trachsel, Appellants, v. Mary C. LACY, as widow of Roscoe Luke Lacy, deceased, and Mary C. Lacy, as Administratrix of the Estate of Roscoe Luke Lacy, deceased, Appellees.

Nos. 70-1048, 70-1049.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 26, 1971.

Walsh, Dolan & Krupnick, Ft. Lauder-dale, for appellants.

Frates, Floyd, Pearson & Stewart, and Morris C. Proenza, Miami, for appellees.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Richardson v. Williams, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 900; and Fernandez v. Chamberlain, Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 781.
No. 9914.

#### Shrader, Admr., *v.*Bline, Admx.

(Decided January 8, 1907.)

Error to Circuit Court of Licking County.

*Messrs. C. & C. H. Follett,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John M. Swarts*and *Messrs. Hunter & Hunter,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-197513, No. 333-177492 and No. 333-170591) and S-8 (No. 333-216440, No. 333-209939, No. 333-202529, No. 333-194520, No. 333-187355, No. 333-180046, No. 333-174283, No. 333-167360 and No. 333-162785) of Cowen Group, Inc. of our report dated March 23, 2016 relating to the financial statements of Starboard Value A LP which appears in this Form 10-K/A -Amendment No. 1 of Cowen Group, Inc.








/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


New York, New York


March 23, 2017
Docket Index

EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0247

DOC # DATE FROM TO SUBJECT

101a-h 3/11/13 Curt Fransen, IDEQ Dennis McLerran, EPA Letter of Submittal and Northern Ada County PM10 SIP, Maintenance Plan 2nd ten 

year update; Appendices A-F

101i 4/4/13 David Luft, IDEQ Lucy Edmondson, EPA Corrected page from Appendix D – new table 7-9, page 7- 17

101j 4/16/13 David Luft, IDEQ Lucy Edmondson, EPA Modified Table 9 and 10 from Section 5.3 MVEB

201a-b 9/23/13 Tiffany Floyd, IDEQ Kate Kelly, EPA Request for EPA Concurrence as Exceptional Events for the February 15–16, 2011,

High Wind PM10 Dust Event and submittal

201c 12/13/13 Dennis McLerran, EPA Curt Fransen, IDEQ EPA Concurrence on IDEQ’s Exceptional Event flags for Feb 15 and 16, 2011

301a 7/13/95 Wallace Cory, IDEQ Chuck Clarke, EPA Pinehurst PM10 Air Quality Improvement Plans – Contingency Measure revisions
#### Arthur C. ADAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-518.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 8, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3735 

To prohibit the Securities and Exchange Commission from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing a proposed rule with respect to conflicts of interest 

associated with the use of predictive data analytics by broker-dealers 

and investment advisers, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2024 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. HAGERTY, and Mr. ROUNDS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Securities and Exchange Commission from 

finalizing, implementing, or enforcing a proposed rule 

with respect to conflicts of interest associated with the 

use of predictive data analytics by broker-dealers and 

investment advisers, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Innovation 

5 in Investment Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3735 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST FINALIZING, IMPLE2 MENTING, OR ENFORCING A PROPOSED RULE 

3 WITH RESPECT TO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 

4 ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF PREDICTIVE 

5 DATA ANALYTICS BY BROKER-DEALERS AND 

6 INVESTMENT ADVISERS. 

7 The Securities and Exchange Commission may not 

8 finalize, implement, or enforce— 

9 (1) the proposed rule of the Commission enti10 tled ‘‘Conflicts of Interest Associated With the Use 

11 of Predictive Data Analytics by Broker-Dealers and 

12 Investment Advisers’’ (88 Fed. Reg. 53960 (August 

13 9, 2023)); or 

14 (2) any rule that is substantially similar to the 

15 rule described in paragraph (1). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Thomas LANGDON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-760.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 13, 1970.

Hughlan Long, Public Defender, and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PEARSON, Chief Judge.

The appellant was adjudged guilty of the unlawful possession of marijuana, and this appeal is from that conviction.

One of the two points upon appeal urges a procedural error. Our review of the record convinces us that the claimed procedural error was not prejudicial to the appellant. Therefore we do not further consider the point. See Jeffcoat v. State, 103 Fla. *466,*138 So. 385, 388 (1931).

The second point urges that the evidence is insufficient to establish that appellant was guilty of the crime as a matter of law. We agree and reverse.

The appellant was one of eight occupants of a bus in which the investigating officer discovered a small quantity of marijuana. Appellant was tried with four others who were arrested at the same time. The trial judge directed a verdict as to three of the five. The record reveals no difference as to the evidence concerning the appellant and the defendants receiving directed verdicts except that appellant admitted he and three others lived in the bus. Appellant did not own the bus.

Appellant relies upon Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 117, and Markmam v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 486, for reversal. These cases stand for the rule that where the defendant has joint control of the premises where contraband is discovered the evidence must go further and show that the defendant had some knowledge that the contraband was on the premises. The evidence against the appellant does not meet this test.

The state relies upon this court’s decision in Zicca v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 414, for affirmance. We think the cases are clearly distinguishable. In the Zicca case this court held that the trier of fact could have found the defendant had knowledge the marijuana was in the bus because: (1) the marijuana was in open view in a plastic container; (2) the defendant was *322the owner and the operator of the bus at the time of the arrest.

The instant record contains no evidence from which the trier of fact could determine that the appellant had possession or control of the marijuana. The evidence is not only subject to the hypothesis of appellant’s guilt but is also subject to the equally reasonable hypothesis of his innocence in that the marijuana was in the possession of one of the co-defendants.

Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge the appellant.
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



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Cornerstone Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Merrill J. Forgotson,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Ernest J. Verrico, 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:



| | (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/ Merrill J. Forgotson |  | /s/ Ernest J. Verrico  
|Merrill J. Forgotson     |  | Ernest J. Verrico      
|Chief Executive Officer  |  | Chief Financial Officer
|May 14, 2004             |  | May 14, 2004           



The foregoing certificate is furnished
solely for purposes of complying with Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and for no other purpose whatsoever. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein or in any of the Companys previous filings under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that might incorporate the Companys future filings, including this Report on Form 10-QSB, in whole or in part, this Certificate shall not be incorporated by reference
into any such filings.



24
No. 9670.

#### The John Shillito Co. *v.*Fox.

(Decided December 18, 1906.)

Error to Superior Court of Cincinnati.

*612
      *Messrs. Maxwell & Ramsey,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Judson Harmon*and *Mr. Charles B. Wilby,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.