alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 233 (Thursday, December 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 64216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31766]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-536-001]


Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

November 28, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 24, 1997, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 
Company (Panhandle), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the corrected tariff sheets listed 
on Appendix A to its filing, to become effective on November 1, 1997 
and December 1, 1997, respectively.
    Panhandle states that this filing corrects a clerical error on its 
tariff sheets to reflect the ST Volumetric Surcharge of 3.00 cents 
applicable to Rate Schedules IT and EIT during the twelve month Section 
18.13 Reconciliation Recovery Period.
    Panhandle states that copies of this filing are being served on all 
affected customers, applicable state regulatory agencies, and all 
parties to this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this 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 must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. 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. 97-31766 Filed 12-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8195

DENNIS L. SNIPES, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

CECILIA REYNOLDS, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (0:07-cv-03516-CMC-MCIV) 

Submitted: June 8, 2009 Decided: June 18, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Susan L. Ferguson, Burbank, California, for Appellant. William 

Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Dennis L. Snipes seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El 

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 

(4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Snipes has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. 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
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 13, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00558

- CR

Jose GONZALEZ, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR8928 Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Pres iding



### O R D E R

The reporter’s record for this appeal was originally due to be filed on September 3 1,

2015. On October 30 , 2015, court report er Kay Gittinger filed the second notice of late record seeking a nother 30

- day extension to November 30 , 2015

. Due to the amount of time already allowed, Ms. Gittinger’s request is granted in part.

It is therefore ORDERED that Kay Gittinger file the reporter’s record in this court no

later than November 24 , 2015

. NO F URTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE

ALLOWED

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 13th day of November, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit
33.3







MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON
ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SEC


REGULATION AB SERVICING
CRITERIA








Union
Bank, N.A. (the "Bank") provides this assessment of compliance with the
following applicable servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation
AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Management has
determined that the servicing criteria are applicable in regards to the
servicing platform for the period as follows:




Platform: Certain
retail installment contracts for American Honda Finance Corporation (the
“Platform”).




ApplicableServicing Criteria:
All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), to the extent required in the
related transaction agreements or required by the Item 1122(d) servicing
criteria in regards to the activities performed by the Company, except for the
following criteria: 1122(d) 1(i), 1(ii), 1(iii),1(iv), 2(i), 2(iii), 2(iv),
2(vii), 3(i), (4)(i), 4(ii), 4(iii), 4(iv), 4(v), 4(vi), 4(vii), 4(viii),
4(ix),4(x), 4(xi), 4(xii), 4(xiii), 4(xiv), and 4(xv),  which
management has determined are not applicable to the activities the Bank performs
with respect to the Platform (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria").




Period:  As
of March 31, 2010 and for the period from February 1, 2010 to March 31, 2010
(the "Period").




With
respect to the Platform and the Period, the Bank provides the following
assessment of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing
Criteria:




1.
            The
      Bank is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
      Servicing Criteria.




2.
            The
      Bank has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria, as
      described above, as of and for the Period. In performing this assessment,
      management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange
      Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation
  AB.




3.
            The
      Bank was in compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and
      for the Period in all material
respects.






Deloitte
and Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an
attestation report with respect to the Bank's foregoing assessment of compliance
as of and for the Period.











UNION BANK, N.A.




By: /s/ David A.
Anderson




David A.
Anderson




Executive
Vice President and Controller













By: /s/ Vicki
Elnick




Vicki
Elnick




Senior
Vice President, Corporate Trust Department




June 11,
2010
**Exhibit 15.2**

** **

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

** **

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statement No. 333-186815 on Form F-3 of our report dated March 28, 2013, relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Scorpio Tankers Inc. for the years ended December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, appearing in the AnnualReport on Form 20-F of Scorpio Tankers Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2013.

 

/s/ Deloitte LLP

 

Deloitte LLP

London, United Kingdom

Date: March 31, 2014
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 provided the U.S. Department of the Treasury $9 billion for the 

Emergency Capital Investment Program (ECIP) to provide direct investments into Community Development 

Financial Institution (CDFI) and Minority Depository Institution (MDI) banks, credit unions and holding companies. 

These investments are designed to support the efforts of community financial institutions to, among other things, 

provide loans, grants, and forbearance for small and minority-owned businesses and consumers, especially in lowincome and financially underserved communities that struggled the most during the COVID-19 crisis.

These mission-driven financial institutions specialize in delivering responsible capital, credit and financial services 

to underserved communities. The investments made by Treasury are expected to be used for a range of 

community investments, including loans to low-income and minority borrowers and underserved small business, 

the development and preservation of affordable housing, and investments in community development projects.

Emergency Capital Investment Program Fact Sheet

Ohio

 

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/emergency-capital-investment-program

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email ecip@treasury.gov for additional information

Treasury has awarded institutions headquartered within Ohio over

$2 million in ECIP investment funds. 

Institution Headquarters City Type Award Amount 

Commodore Perry Federal Credit Union Oak Harbor CDFI $ 1,260,000 

Toledo Urban Federal Credit Union Toledo CDFI & MDI $ 1,000,000 

Note: Headquarters City indicates institution headquarters location only. Institution's lending activity may go beyond identified city.
March 26, 2010 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0171

Mr. Virgil Gottfried Director of Operations

Samaritan’s Purse 180 Corporate Aviation Drive North Wilkesboro, NC 28659

Dear Mr. Gottfried:

This is in response to your letter dated February 19, 2009, petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Samaritan’s Purse for an exemption from part 125.

The current Samaritan’s Purse exemption request is based on an incorrect interpretation from the

FAA which concluded that the DC-3 was not a transport category aircraft and that the supplemental type certificate (STC) conversion to a twin engine turbo-prop did not change the

certification basis of the aircraft. After furthe r review, that interpretation contained some

conclusions that were incorrect.

The petitioner’s DC-3 aircraft is a transport category airplane. The designation as transport category dates back to 1950 and was confirmed when the STC to Basler was issued.

The petitioner’s request for exemption from part 125 was based on this incorrect interpretation of aircraft category and, therefore, is denied. The designation of the petitioner’s airplane as transport category is not the sole reason for denying this exemption request. As a matter of policy, the FAA has determined that routinely issuing deviations from all of part 125 for prolonged periods renders part 125 meaningless and defeats the purpose of the rules. Deviations granted under §125.3 are done for individual sections on a case-by-case basis and require that the2 operator show that it can maintain an equivalent level of safety. The petitioner’s request is considered a request for a blanket deviation, which we no longer consider.

For the reasons above, we are denying your petition for exemption. Accordingly, Docket No. FAA-2009-0171 is being closed.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen Director, Flight Standards Service
#### NU-WAY PLUMBING, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. SUPERIOR MECHANICAL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-744.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 6, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Mary Jiles, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[736 NYS2d 36]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about August 21, 2000, which, in an action for personal injuries, deemed plaintiffs motion “for an Order vacating the default entered against the Plaintiff on October 8, 1992 and restoring the action to the conference calendar” to be a motion “to restore this 1989 action to active status,” and, after demanding, sua sponte, that plaintiff serve and file a note of issue within 90 days, granted the motion to restore the action to active status, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties do not dispute that, as found by the motion court, the instant action was “marked off” a “clerk’s calendar” when no party appeared to answer the “call” of such calendar on October 8, 1992; that such calendar call was conducted for the limited purpose of determining the status of the action; that there was no significant activity after such calendar call until August 1999, when plaintiff made a motion “to restore the action to active status” that was “denied” for failure to appear at the call of the motion calendar; and that a note of issue has never been filed. Defendants oppose this second motion to restore, arguing that they have been prejudiced by the long delay, and that the action should be deemed abandoned and dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404. Such relief is unavailable. CPLR 3404 does not apply to actions in which a note of issue has not been filed *(Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv.,*282 AD2d 190 [2d Dept]; *accord Johnson v Minskoff & Sons,*287 AD2d 233), and, indeed, marking a case off a pre-note of issue calendar is simply not a penalty available to the court when the plaintiff fails to appear at a pre-note of issue conference or other pre-note of issue proceeding *(see, Lopez, id.,*at 196, 198, 199; *Johnson, id.).*Accordingly, the action was properly restored to active status since there was never any authority to put it in inactive status in the first place. The prejudice of which defendants complain could have been avoided by service of CPLR 3216 90-day notices. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Sullivan and Ellerin, JJ.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 20

- 0323

Filed February 16, 2022

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs.

DAVID M. BOGGS

, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cass County, Jeffrey L. Larson

,

Judge.

David Boggs appeals an order denying his motion to extinguish his

restitution obligation. AFFIRMED.

Anne M. Rohling of Rohling Law, PLLC

, Council Bluffs , for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Darrel Mullins , Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Consid ered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., May, J., and Vogel, S. J. *

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2022 ).2

MAY

, Judge

.

David Boggs appeals an order denying his motion to extinguish his

restitution obligation. H is claim in this appeal is identical to the claim he raised in

a prior appeal, Boggs v. State , No. 20

- 0311, 2021 WL 4592776, at *1 (Iowa Ct.

App. Oct. 6, 2021) , in which we affirmed the district court

. 1 We see no reason to

treat this appeal differently. So we affirm without further opinion. See Iowa Ct.

R. 21.26(1)(d)(e).

AFFIRMED.

1 The argument section of Boggs’ s brief in his current appeal is identical to that in

his brief for Boggs , 2021 WL 4592776, at *1.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 64800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31970]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Reopening of 
Comment Period on Status Review for Cheetah in Namibia

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of status review; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Service gives notice that the comment period on the status 
review of the Cheetah in Namibia, as initiated in response to a 
petition to reclassify the species in that country from endangered to 
threatened, will be reopened.

DATES: Comments and information may be submitted through February 1, 
1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments, information, and questions should be submitted to 
the Chief, Office of Scientific Authority; Room 750, 4401 North Fairfax 
Drive; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Arlington, Virginia 22203 (Fax 
number 703-358-2276). The petition finding, supporting data, and 
comments will be available for public inspection, by appointment, from 
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at this address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Charles W. Dane, Chief, Office of Scientific Authority, at the 
above address (phone 703-358-1708).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of March 19, 1996 
(61 FR 11181), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announced 
the 90-day finding that a petition to reclassify the cheetah (Acinonyx 
jubatus) in Namibia from endangered to threatened had presented 
substantial information indicating that the requested action may be 
warranted. A status review was initiated, with the original comment 
period ending July 17, 1996. Subsequently, the Service received two new 
documents that may have major relevance to this issue: a management 
plan for the cheetah prepared by the Government of Namibia and a final 
report on a cheetah workshop held by the World Conservation Union 
(IUCN). In order to consider this new information and any comments 
thereon, the Service has decided to reopen the comment period until 
February 1, 1998, and will provide copies of the indicated documents 
upon request. All comments and information will be considered in making 
a final decision on whether the requested action is warranted, and will 
be included in the administrative record.

    Authority: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.).

    Dated: November 19, 1997.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-31970 Filed 12-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 12.3

                       ORANGE AND ROCKLAND UTILITIES, INC.

                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                               TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
                             (Thousands of Dollars)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          MARCH
                                                                          2001
                                                                         -------
<S>                                                                      <C>
EARNINGS
      Net Income                                                         $41,534
      Federal Income & State Tax                                          27,632

      Total Earnings Before Federal and State Income Tax                  69,166

FIXED CHARGES*                                                            26,750
                                                                         -------
              Total Earnings Before Federal and State
                 Income Tax and Fixed Charges                            $95,916
                                                                         =======


      * Fixed Charges

      Interest on Long-Term Debt                                         $21,863
      Interest Component on lease Payment                                  1,286
      Other Interest                                                       3,601
                                                                         -------

              Total Fixed Charges                                        $26,750
                                                                         =======


      Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                    3.59
</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Team Industrial Services, Inc., and Sid Cammeresi

Appellate case number: 01-21-00212-CV

Trial court case number: 18-DCV-256883

Trial court: 268th District Court of Fort Bend County

Relators, Team Industrial Services, Inc. and Sid Cammeresi, have filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus challenging the trial court’s May 3, 2021 order enforcing a subpoena and requiring 

relator, Sid Cammeresi, to appear for trial beginning May 4, 2021. Relators have also filed a 

motion for temporary relief asking this Court to stay the order pending this Court’s decision.

The Court grants the motion for temporary relief and orders the May 3, 2021 order 

enforcing the subpoena against Sid Cammeresi stayed pending this Court’s disposition of the 

petition for writ of mandamus.

The Court requests a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from real parties in 

interest, Kelli Most, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jesse Henson, to 

be filed by Wednesday, May 5, 2021, at 5:00 p.m.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___Justice Richard Hightower________________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ____May 4, 2021__________________
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30660]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5925-9]


Availability of Draft Document on Information for States on 
Developing Affordability Criteria for Drinking Water

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of document availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is making available for 
public comment a draft document entitled Information for States on 
Developing Affordability Criteria for Drinking Water. The Safe Drinking 
Water Act Amendments of 1996 require the Agency to publish information 
to assist states in developing affordability criteria. To meet the 
statutory schedule, this information must be published by February 6, 
1998. The draft document being made available today was developed by a 
diverse working group of stakeholders under the auspices of the 
National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC). The full NDWAC 
reviewed this draft and recommended it to EPA as a draft to be made 
available for public comment. EPA invites interested members of the 
public to submit comments on the draft document. EPA will consider 
public comments and publish a final document by the February 6, 1998, 
statutory deadline.

DATES: Submit comments on or before December 31, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this draft document to Peter 
E. Shanaghan, Small Systems Coordinator, Office of Ground Water and 
Drinking Water, Mail Code 4606, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter E. Shanaghan, 202-260-5813 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ffce7eee1eee8e7eee1a1ffeafbeafdcfeaffeee2eee6e3a1eaffeea1e8e0f9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="384b505956595f50595616485d4c5d4a785d485955595154165d4859165f574e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A copy of the draft document may be obtained 
by calling the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791. The 
hotline operates Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m. (EST). The 
document may also be downloaded from EPA's homepage, <a href="http://
www.epa.gov/OGWDW">http://
www.epa.gov/OGWDW</a>.
Elizabeth Fellows,
Acting Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
[FR Doc. 97-30660 Filed 11-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>