alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flag
          Un sitio oficial del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos
            Así es como usted puede verificarlo
          Así es como usted puede verificarloDot gov**El .gov significa que es oficial.**
                
                Los sitios web del gobierno federal siempre usan un dominio .gov o .mil. Antes de compartir información confidencial en línea, asegúrese de estar en un sitio .gov o .mil.
          Https**Este sitio es seguro.**
                
                El **https://** medios todos los datos transmitidos son cifrados - en otras palabras, cualquier información o el historial de navegación que proporcione se transmite de forma segura.

    
          FTC: Translation Menu
  

        
EnglishFTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        
    
    Reporte las estafas
                                
                          
        
                Reciba alertas **
Menú


    close


                  FTC: Main navigation (ES)
  

        
  
  Consejos para consumidores
      
    Guía para negocios
      
    Reembolsos
      
    Noticias
      
    Acerca de la FTC
      
    Buscar
        
        
        FTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        
    
    Reporte las estafas
                                
                          
        
                Reciba alertas

          
  
          Consejos para consumidores
      
    
              Guía para negocios
      
    
              Reembolsos
      
    
              Noticias
      
    
              Acerca de la FTC
      
    
              Buscar Cases Tagged with Made in USA No results found for this tag.
  
    
    
    

  Return to top **
Menú
FTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        


      Reporte las estafas
                              Reciba alertas
  
  
      FTC: Footer (es)
  

        


      Política de privacidad y noticias
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32835]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-116-000]


National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

December 11, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 4, 1997, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National Fuel), 10 Lafayette Square, Buffalo, New York, 
14203, filed in Docket No. CP98-116-000, a request, pursuant to 
Sections 157.205 and 157.214 of the Commission's Regulations under the 
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205 and 157.214), for authorization to 
increase the storage capacity at its Keelor Storage Field in McKean 
County, Pennsylvania, under its blanket certificate issued in Docket 
No. CP83-4-000, pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as 
more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the 
Commission and open to public inspection.
    National Fuel requests authorization to increase the storage 
capacity from 3.3 Bcf (with 1.8 Bcf working gas) to 3.9 Bcf (with 2.4 
Bcf of working gas). National Fuel asserts that the new capacity 
resulting from this proposal will support storage service to be offered 
to its shippers. National Fuel states that the increase in capacity at 
the Keelor Storage Field will not require additional facilities within 
the meaning of the Commission's regulations. National Fuel indicates 
that the current and requested maximum storage pressures are 625 psig.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32835 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
U.S. Position on AfDB’s Loan to South Africa’s ESKOM

December 15, 2015

The United States recognizes the importance of addressing South Africa’s ongoing power 

deficit and the importance of South Africa’s power generation to the sub-region. Lack of 

access to energy serves as a significant hindrance to economic growth.

The United States also feels strongly that in order to address the critical challenge of 

increasing access to energy on the continent, countries must do so with the best and cleanest 

technologies available as well as with development partners that are committed to strong 

governance. The United States commends the South African authorities for their 

commitment to renewable energy as evidenced in the Integrated Resource Plan and Eskom 

strategy. 

The United States has concerns with this project based on both the type of power generation 

the Capacity Enhancement Program (CEP) will support, as well as Eskom’s weak track 

record, despite considerable support, on delivering investments on time and within budget.

On the type of power generation, the project’s contribution to green growth is expected to be 

limited given Eskom’s heavy dependence on coal-fired power plants, and here, the Bank’s 

investment is expected to increase generation capacity. 

Moreover, Eskom’s financial position remains precarious even with the recent extraordinary 

support by the government. While Eskom’s senior management are taking steps to improve 

the financial situation, more is needed. The United States is disappointed that this operation 

does not offer any capacity building assistance or additional support to help Eskom improve 

its overall operational efficiency. Unfortunately, the Bank may have missed an important 

opportunity to help strengthen a struggling institution.

Further, Eskom has had a weak track record in adhering to air quality monitoring activities,

and many of the environmental commitments made under the Medupi project have not yet 

commenced. These factors cast further doubts on how well the environmental impacts from 

the CEP project will be managed. The United States is also disappointed that the AfDB did 

not disclose any specific environmental assessments for this project. 

For these reasons, the United States would like to be recorded as voting ‘no’ on this

operation.
#### Jackie Boyd SWAIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. HH-463.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 8, 1978.

*866Jackie Boyd Swain, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst.'Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed his pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence on August 25, 1977. The trial court entered an Order Denying Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence and advised the appellant of his right to appeal that order. In said order, the court specifically found that the motion was not in substantial compliance with Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 (as amended, effective July 1, 1977) and noted that pursuant to said Rule, the court refused to receive or act upon the motion.

Rule 3.850 provides that a motion to vacate, set aside, or-correct a judgment or sentence shall include the following:

> (a) The judgment or sentence under attack and the court which rendered the same;

> (b) Whether there was an appeal from the judgment or sentence and the disposition thereof;

> (c) Whether a previous post-conviction motion has been filed, and if so, how many;

> (d) The nature of the relief sought;

> (e) A brief statement of the facts (rather than conclusions) relied upon in support of the motion.

Further, Rule 3.850 mandates that the trial court refuse to receive any motion which is not in substantial compliance with those minimum prerequisites.

The trial court did not err in finding that the appellant’s motion failed to substantially comply with Fla.R.Crim.P, 3.850. Therefore, the order appealed from is affirmed. Certainly, the appellant may file a motion which substantially complies with Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 so that a decision on the merits of his motion can be reached.1

Where the court refuses to receive or act upon a motion for post-conviction relief because the motion fails to substantially comply with Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850, in accordance with the rule, the court should instruct the clerk, without order, to return said motion to the movant as unacceptable in that it fails to substantially comply with the Rule. Although not specifically required by the Rule, we would recommend that the motion returned to the movant be accompanied with a statement of the reason for its return setting forth which portions of the Rule were not complied with.

AFFIRMED.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MELVIN, JJ., concur.

1

. We note that Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 has been recently amended and that Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.987 now provides a model form for a Motion for Post Conviction Relief [effective January 1. 1978; see 353 So.2d 552 (Fla. 1977)].
**Exhibit 32.1.2**

 

**Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Robert N. Hoglund, the Chief Financial Officer of Consolidated Edison, Inc. (the“Company”) certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006, which this statement accompanies, (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Dated: August 2, 2006
#### Alfred P. BERCIER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HARDWARE DEALERS MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 3503.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

July 13, 1971.

Voorhies, Labbe, Fontenot, Leonard & McGlasson, by Richard Chappuis, Jr., Lafayette, for defendant-appellant.

J. Minos Simon and John Rixie Mouton, Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before FRUGÉ, SAVOY and HOOD, JJ-

SAVOY, Judge.

This is a suit instituted by plaintiff against his insurer to recover $2,000.00 for medical payments under the terms of the policy, and for attorney’s fees and penalties for failure to pay said claim without probable cause. Defendant filed a general denial to the petition.

Prior to trial on the merits, defendant made a tender of $2,000.00 under the medical payments provision of the policy. Plaintiff accepted this sum, but in the signed release, reserved his rights to proceed with his claim for attorney’s fees and penalties.

After a trial on the merits, the district judge awarded plaintiff attorney’s fees of $650.00, and 12% penalties or $240.00, for a total of $890.00. From this judgment defendant has appealed.

The record reveals that plaintiff’s son was killed in an accident while driving plaintiff’s car which was insured by defendant. It was shown that the medical and funeral expenses were in excess of $2,000.00; that proper demand had been made on defendant; and that sixty days had elapsed from the time the demand was made until the suit was filed. Defendant contends that it was not arbitrary or capricious in not making said payment within sixty days for the reason that its branch office in New Orleans told its local adjuster that there was no coverage for the reason that the policy had been cancelled prior to the accident. Defendant also contends that the adjuster contacted plaintiff who also told him that the policy was cancelled. A check with the home office of defendant revealed that the policy was in effect at the time of the accident in the instant case.

*529We are of the opinion that the judgment of the district court was correct. The defendant had all the information necessary, and the failure to timely pay the claim was due to neglect on its part.

For the reasons assigned the judgment of the district court is affirmed. Defendant to pay costs incurred in this Court.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 99.6**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEER**

 

We hereby consent to the use and reference to our name and reports evaluating (i) a portion of Cenovus Energy Inc. oil and gas reserves data, including estimates of proved reserves and probable reserves and related future net revenue as at December 31, 2013, estimated using forecast prices and costs, and (ii) the contingent resources and prospective resources of Cenovus Energy Inc. as at December 31, 2013, estimated using forecast prices and costs, and the information derived from our reports,  as described or incorporated by reference in Cenovus Energy Inc.’s annual report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 and Cenovus Energy Inc.’s registration statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-163397), Form F-3D (File No. 333-166419), and Form F-10 (File No. 333-188478), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, as applicable.

 

 
| MCDANIEL &   ASSOCIATES CONSULTANTS LTD. |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                              |   |
| /s/   P.A. Welch                                  |   |
| P.A.   Welch, P. Eng.                             |   |
| President &   Managing Director          |   |
|                                              |   |
| Calgary,   Alberta                                |   |
| February 19, 2014                            |   |

 

1

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                         284,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,644,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     54,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,255,000
<PP&E>                                       6,673,800
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,620,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,924,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,687,700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,300
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,570,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,924,000
<SALES>                                      1,417,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,780,600
<CGS>                                        1,347,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,445,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                75,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,750,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,750,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,750,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Dian L. HARDISON, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.

No. 02-3299.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 2, 2002.

Before LOURIE, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.-

*ORDER*

We treat the petition for review, faxed to the court by Dian L. Hardison, as a motion for leave to accept a faxed petition.

On January 17, 2002, the Merit Systems Petition Board denied Hardison’s petition for review in her case. On March 4, 2002 and March 8, 2002, Hardison faxed petitions for review to this court. On March 21, 2002, this court rejected Hardison’s *493petitions, informing Hardison that pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 25(b)(3), “[n]o document other than a motion, response to a motion, reply to a response, or letter may be filed or serv.ed by facsimile transmission.” On March 26, 2002, Hardison responded by fax to this court’s March 21 letter, arguing that information on this court’s website allows her to file a petition via facsimile.

> The notice on the court’s website states: *Notice:*Owing to difficulties with U.S. mail delivery the Court is deemed inaccessible, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 26(a)(3), until further notice.

> U.S. Postal Service mail delivery to the Court is still experiencing difficulties and delays. Those who have alternative methods of communicating with and shipping documents to the Court may wish to use them pending the resolution of this problem.

The notice does not override this court’s Rules of Practice. Instead, it encourages parties to use alternative methods of communicating with and shipping documents, rather than by mail. By deeming the court “inaccessible,” the notice allows the court to accept for filing items that were mailed before the due date but were not received by this court by the due date. It also encourages use of commercial delivery services or personal delivery. More importantly, the methods of filing a document in a federal appellate court are governed by Fed. R.App. P. 25(a)(2)(A). That provision provides that “filing may be accomplished by mail addressed to the clerk, but filing is not timely unless the court receives the papers within the time fixed for filing.” As noted earlier, Fed. Cir. R. 25(b)(3) states that “[n]o document other than a motion, response to a motion, reply to a response, or letter may be filed or served by facsimile transmission.” Hardi-son’s petition cannot be accepted for filing. Without a properly filed petition for review, she has not timely filed in this court and her case must be dismissed.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Hardison’s motion for leave to accept a faxed petition is denied.

(2) Hardison’s petition is dismissed.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet as of Augst 31, 1998, and the consolidated statement
of income for the year ende August 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,896
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      496
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,392
<PP&E>                                          37,059
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,599
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,383
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              220
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        125
<COMMON>                                            52
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,038
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,383
<SALES>                                          4,988
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,065
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,158
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,907
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,907
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,907
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1





SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF


PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


OF ODENZA CORP.





In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Odenza Corp. for the year ended January 31, 2011, the undersigned, William O’Neill, President and Chief Executive Officer of Odenza Corp., does 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)  such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)  the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2011 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Odenza Corp.





Date: May 17, 2011
/s/ William O’NeillWilliam O’NeillPresident and Chief Executive Officer, Secretary and Treasurer (and principal financial officer and principal accounting officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tony Brian MIDDLETON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-35732.

D.C. No. CV-01-00973-MA, CR-91-00290-MA.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Tony Brian Middleton appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his 235-month sentence as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo the denial of a § 2255 motion, *Sanchez v. United, States,*50 F.3d 1448, 1451 (9th Cir.1995), and we affirm.

Middleton contends that his sentence violates *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because his sentence was enhanced based on factors which were neither alleged in the indictment nor proven to the jury. Middleton’s contentions have been foreclosed by this court’s recent decision in *United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes,*282 F.3d 664, 667-71 (9th Cir.2002) (denying a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and holding that *Apprendi*does not apply retroactively to cases on initial collateral review).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.