alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64582-64583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31998]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-71-000]

Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of GSR Cost Recovery Filing

December 2, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 28, 1997, Southern Natural Gas Company 
(Southern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets with the proposed 
effective date of January 1, 1998.

Tariff Sheets Applicable to Contesting Parties

Thirty-Sixth Revised Sheet No. 14
Fifty-Seventh Revised Sheet No. 15
Thirty-Sixth Revised Sheet No. 16
Fifty-Seventh Revised Sheet No. 17
Thirty-First Revised Sheet No. 18
Thirty-Ninth Revised Sheet No. 29

Tariff Sheets Applicable to Supporting Parties

Nineteenth Revised Sheet No. 14a
Twenty-Fifth Revised Sheet No. 15a
Nineteenth Revised Sheet No. 16a
Twenty-Fifth Revised Sheet No. 17a

    Southern sets forth in the filing its revised demand surcharges and 
revised interruptible rates that will be charged in connection with its 
recovery of GSR costs associated with the payment of price differential 
costs under unrealigned gas supply contracts as well as sales function 
costs during the period August 1, 1997 through October 31, 1997. These 
GSR costs have arisen as a direct result of customers' elections during 
restructuring to terminate their sales entitlements under Order No. 
636.
    Southern states that copies of the filing were served upon 
Southern's customers and interested state commissions.
    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

[[Page 64583]]

First Street N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 
385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure. All such motions or protests should 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of Southern's filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31998 Filed 12-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 I, David Shadduck, the chief financial officer of TruServ Corporation, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended
          September 28, 2002 (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 TruServ Corporation.



Dated: November 12, 2002


/s/ David A. Shadduck
---------------------
David A. Shadduck
Chief Financial Officer
Sources and Uses Reconciliation Table 

      Financing       Financing Marketable All Other   Change in     Need Borrowing Sources Total Cash Balance

Quarter Announcement Date (1) (2) (3) (4) = (2) + (3) (5) = (4) - (1)Oct - Dec             

2005 Actual 97  93  6  98  1               

Jan - Mar             2006 Actual 173  159  (15) 144  (28) 

             Apr - Jun             

2006 Actual (137) (91) (8) (99) 38               

Jul - Sep             2006 Actual 19  49  (23) 26  6  

             Oct - Dec             

2006 Actual 70  46  2  48  (21)              

Jan - Mar             2007 Actual 159  126  9  134  (25) 

             Apr - Jun             

2007 Actual (153) (139) 5  (133) 19               

Jul - Sep             2007 Actual 35  116  (31) 85  50  

             Oct - Dec             

2007 Actual 91  126  (53) 73  (18)              

Jan - Mar             2008 Actual 187  244  (68) 176  (11) 

             Apr - Jun April 28, 2008 (83) (35) (49) (84) (1) 

2008 July 28, 2008 (74) 13  (80) (66) 7    Memo: Forecast Revision 9  48  (30) 18  8  

Jul - Sep April 28, 2008 103  112  (10) 103  0  2008 July 28, 2008 159  171  (20) 151  (8) 

  Memo: Forecast Revision 56  59  (11) 48  (8) Oct - Dec April 28, 2008 117  119  (7) 112  (5) 

2008 July 28, 2008 135  142  (11) 130  (5)   Memo: Forecast Revision 18  22  (5) 18  (0)
Treasury approves Massachusetts’ plan to invest $145 million of CPF 

funding in broadband infrastructure projects that will provide high-quality 

internet to locations that lack access to adequate service.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

Massachusetts

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

 Program Summary: $145 million for Broadband Infrastructure (83% of CPF allocation)

 Locations to Be Served: 16,000 (estimated)

 Program Description: The Broadband Infrastructure 

Gap Networks Grant Program (Gap Networks Grant 

Program), a competitive grant program, is designed to 

address gaps in broadband infrastructure where reliable 

broadband service is currently unavailable. Funding from 

CPF will help Massachusetts continue their efforts to bridge the Commonwealth’s remaining 

digital divide.

‒ The Gap Networks Grant Program is designed to provide internet service with speeds of 

100/100 Mbps symmetrical to households and businesses upon project completion.

‒ Each of the internet service providers funded by the Gap Networks Grant Program will 

participate in the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) – a $30 per month subsidy 

for low-income families. 

 Key State Contact: Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development 

and the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative’s Massachusetts Broadband Institute 

Massachusetts Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

As reported by Massachusetts, 

estimates show that investments 

made using the Capital Projects 

Fund will serve 27% of locations 

still lacking high-speed internet 

access in the state.

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

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

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information
July 9, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MCNEIL INTERESTS, INC., Appellant

NO. 14-12-01142-CV V.

JAMES G. QUISENBERRY, JR., Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, James G. 

Quisenberry, Jr., signed October 11, 2012, was heard on the transcript of the 

record. We have inspected the record and find the trial court erred in finding that 

the claims of appellant, McNeil Interests, Inc., on the $600,000 Amegy note and 

the $100,000 McNeil Interests note are barred by res judicata. We therefore order 

that the portions of the judgment in favor of James G. Qusienberry, Jr. on McNeil 

Interests, Inc.’s claims on the $600,000 Amegy note and the $100,000 McNeil 

Interests note are REVERSED and ordered severed and REMANDED for 

proceedings in accordance with this court’s opinion.

Further, we find no error in the remainder of the judgment and order it 

AFFIRMED.

We order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellee, 

James G. Quisenberry.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA - 2011 - 1074 Directorate ID: 2010 - SW - 028 -AD Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model EC225LP Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 0 Helicopters in the US Registry. Reason : to detect a missing floor attachment screw, washer, or nut and help prevent detachment of the seat from the floor during an emergency landing. Costs : There are no costs of compliance since there are no helicopters of this type design on the U.S. Registry. Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer: Gary Roach
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-10739 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GREGORIA RAMIREZ, also known as Ramona Ramirez,

also known as Goya, also known as Goyita,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:94-CR-301-6-G

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

February 21, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gregoria Ramirez, federal prisoner No. 26528-077, seeks a

certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s

denial of her petition for writ of error coram nobis. The motion

for a COA is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. See United States v. Dyer,

136 F.3d 417, 429 n.32 (5th Cir. 1998). As it is undisputed that

Ramirez is still in custody from the conviction she wishes to
No. 01-10739

- 2 -

challenge, she is not entitled to coram nobis relief. Jimenez v.

Trominski, 91 F.3d 767, 768 (5th Cir. 1996). 

The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because

the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 64822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32129]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 3131-032]


SR Hydropower of Brockway Mills, Inc. SR Hydropower, Inc.; Notice 
Accepting Late Filing and Establishing Deadline for Responses

December 3, 1997.
    On November 1, 1996, Paul V. Nolan, as attorney for the Town of 
Rockingham, Vermont, filed a motion to intervene, protest, and 
comments, as well as a complaint and request for investigation relating 
to events surrounding an application filed August 16, 1996, by SR 
Hydropower of Brockway Mills, Inc. to surrender its license in Project 
No. 3131. On December 16, 1996, John Rais filed on behalf of SR 
Hydropower, Inc. and/or SR Hydropower of Brockway Mills, Inc. a 
response to Rockingham's November 1, 1996 filings.
    On June 2, 1997, Paul Nolan, on behalf of Rockingham filed a letter 
with the Commission, asserting that the December 16, 1996 filing by 
John Rais was not timely filed, nor was a copy of the filing served on 
Rockingingham or Nolan, and should not be accepted for filing. In the 
June 2, 1997 filing, Nolan answered, in part, certain allegations by 
Rais concerning a conflict of interest in Nolan's representation of 
Rockingham in this matter, but reserved the right to respond in full if 
the Commission should accept Rais's December 16, 1996 filing.
    In light of the circumstances described in Rais's December 16, 1996 
filing, and the fact that Rockingham has now received a copy of the 
filing, the filing is accepted. Any further answers to the allegations 
in that filing concerning Nolan's conflict of interest, or any other 
matter, must be made by December 19, 1997.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32129 Filed 12-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Roy McPHERSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 40460.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 3, 1971.

Certiorari dismissed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                               Amendment No. 8 to
                     Eugene R. McGrath Employment Agreement

     WHEREAS, Eugene R. McGrath (the "Employee") and Consolidated Edison Company
of New York, Inc. (the "Company") entered into an Employment Agreement effective
September 1, 1990 (the "Agreement");

     WHEREAS,  the parties to the  Agreement  desire to amend the  Agreement  to
increase the basic salary payable to the Employee; and

      WHEREAS,  paragraph 12 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement may be
amended  from time to time by a written  instrument  executed by the Company and
the Employee;

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing the parties hereto agree
as follows:

1. The  Agreement  is amended,  effective  September  1, 1997,  to increase  the
Employee's  basic  salary  set  forth in  clause  (i) of  paragraph  3(a) of the
Agreement  from  $740,000  per annum to $815,000  per annum,  subject to all the
terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement relating to the basic salary.

2. In all other  respects,  the  Agreement  remains  in full force and effect as
amended hereby.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its
duly  authorized  officer and its Corporate seal to be affixed  hereto,  and the
Employee has hereto set his hand the day and year set forth below.

                       CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.

                        By:   CHARLES F. SOUTAR
                              Executive Vice President

                        EUGENE R. MCGRATH

Dated:  July 22, 1997

Attest:
Approved by the Board of Trustees the 22nd day of July 1997.

ARCHIE M. BANKSTON
Secretary
#### Annie PASCHAL, Appellant, v. Frances PINKARD, a minor, through her next friend, Eloise Pinkard, and Eloise Pinkard, individually, Appellees. Annie PASCHAL, Appellant, v. Herman TUCKER and Earline Tucker, his wife, Appellees.

Nos. L-333, 334.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Dec. 9, 1969.

Boyd, Jenerette & Leemis, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Blalock, Holbrook, Lewis, Paul & Bennett, Jacksonville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So.2d 49 (Fla.App.1st, 1966).

JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### John RABREAU and James Malta, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 72-49, 72-88.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 31, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1972.

Norman Francis Haft, Miami, Milton E. Grusmark, Miami Beach, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HA-VERFIELD, JJ.

PEARSON, Judge.

The appellants, John Rabreau and James Malta, were jointly charged and tried for (a) unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, and (b) sale of a narcotic drug. A single sentence was imposed on each defendant: Rabreau was sentenced to twenty-four months in prison: Malta was sentenced to forty-eight months in prison. On this appeal the same point is argued by both appel*65lants.1 The point contends that the court committed reversible error when it denied appellants’ demands for the name of the confidential informer who participated in the discussion leading to the consummation of the crime.

Even though no point is directed to the sufficiency of the evidence, we have read the record and find that the proof of guilt is clear and convincing as to each appellant. Davis v. State, Fla.App.1972, 267 So.2d 85. The question thus is simply whether the appellants received a fair trial under the applicable law.

In argument, the appellants imply a pretrial request for the name of the confidential informer. The record fails to support this implication. The first allusion in the record to the existence of a confidential informer is found upon the cross-examination of one of the State’s witnesses, a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. The special agent was the second witness for the State. An objection to a question asking the name of the confidential informer was sustained. The only ground presented for the disclosure by defendants’ counsel was that the State had “indicated to me this morning in objecting to taking the deposition of the confidential informant, that they would give it to me at the time of trial.” After a recess, and during the continued cross-examination of the same special agent, the name of the informer was given by the witness. Further questions disclosed that the defendant Malta knew the informer’s name and former address. Both defendants took the stand in their own behalf. Each denied the possession and denied that there was a sale. There was no evidence to support a plea of entrapment, and the State proved a sale to the officers.

Under these circumstances, no error is demonstrated because the State failed to reveal the name of the confidential informer when the first request was made. Cf. Spataro v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 873.

Affirmed.

1

. In his brief, appellant Malta presented a point urging double jeopardy because of his conviction on charges of both sale and possession. See Parker v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 253. However, in view of the single sentence, the additional point was abandoned at oral argument.
Memo of Telephone Conference

Participants: Steve Owens OCSPP, Steve Bradbury, OPP Congressman Ben Chandler

Date: August 3, 2010 Subject: Ammonia Petitions

A telephone conference between members of OC SPP (Steve Owens and Steve Bradbury) and Congressman Ben Chandler was held on Augus t 3, 2010 to discuss the history and issues surrounding the petitions for ammonia and urea. EPA explained that because the Agency is in the midst of a public comment period, the Agency was not in a position to discuss future decisions.
1 Brunner, Christine

From: Sutton, Tia Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 3:53 PM To: Brunner, Christine Subject: FW: EO 12866 Comments on Tier 3 draft final rule (R IN 2060-AQ86) - for the docket Attachments: EO_12866_ Tier 3_Final_Rule_Summary_Comments_2_13_2 014.docx; EO12866 _Comments on EPA_Tier 3 draft final rule - 2_13_201 4.doc

From: Sargeant, Kathryn Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 3:45 PM To: Sutton, Tia Subject: EO 12866 Comments on Tier 3 draft final rule (RIN 2060-AQ86)



### For the docket

From: Whiteman, Chad [ mailto:Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov ] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:45 AM To: Sargeant, Kathryn Subject: EO 12866 Comments on Tier 3 draft final rule (RIN 2060-AQ86)



### Kathryn, Attached are some of the EO 12866 comments on the Tier 3 draft final rule (RIN 2060-AQ86). Regards, Chad
Exhibit 21.1

List of Subsidiaries of Tropicana Entertainment Inc.

Tropicana Atlantic City Corp. (New Jersey corporation)Tropicana AC Sub Corp. (New Jersey corporation)New Tropicana Holdings, Inc. (Delaware corporation)New Tropicana OpCo, Inc. (Delaware corporation)Aztar Riverboat Holding Company, LLC (Indiana limited liability company)Aztar Indiana Gaming Company, LLC (Indiana limited liability company)New Jazz Enterprises, L.L.C. (Nevada limited liability company)Catfish Queen Partnership in Commendam (Louisiana)Centroplex Centre Convention Hotel, L.L.C. (Louisiana limited liability company)New St. Louis Riverboat, LLC (Nevada limited liability company)CP St. Louis Casino, LLC (Delaware limited liability company)CP St. Louis Acquisition, LLC (Delaware limited liability company)Tahoe Horizon, LLC (Delaware limited liability company)Columbia Properties Tahoe, LLC (Nevada limited liability company)CP Laughlin Realty, LLC (Delaware limited liability company)Columbia Properties Laughlin, LLC (Nevada limited liability company)Columbia Properties Vicksburg, LLC (Mississippi limited liability company)JMBS Casino LLC (Mississippi limited liability company)Greenville Riverboat, LLC (Mississippi) limited liability companyTropicana Express, LLC (Nevada limited liability company)


---



QuickLinks
#### John Davis WHITTELL, a minor, etc., and William H. Whittell, individually, Petitioners, v. Robert Edwin LEE et al., Respondents.

No. 42554.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 28, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 15, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 262 So.2d 913.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
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
 
 Robert Hoerr, the President (Principal Executive Officer) and Director of Enterologics, Inc. (the “Registrant”), 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-K of the Registrant for the year ended December 31, 2010 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-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
  Date: March 23, 2011

By: /s/ Robert HoerrName: Robert Hoerr

Title:   President and Director

(Principal Executive Officer)
 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.
#### In re ESTATE of Dana BRANNEN.

No. 37887.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Rehearing Denied May 5, 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 213 So.2d 725.