alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3553]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP97-227-000]


El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

February 7, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 4, 1997, El Paso Natural (El Paso), 
Post Office Box 1492, El Paso, Texas 79978, filed a request with the 
Commission in Docket No. CP97-227-000, pursuant to Sections 157.205, 
and 157.216(b) of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas 
Act (NGA) for authorization to abandon certain miscellaneous tap and 
meter facilities and the service rendered by means thereof authorized 
in blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-435-000, all as more 
fully set forth in the request on file with the Commission and open to 
public inspection.
    El Paso proposes to abandon 34 miscellaneous facilities, with 
associated appurtenances and related natural gas service rendered by 
such facilities. The facilities consist of 32 taps and two meter 
stations, and were required by El Paso to facilitate, generally, the 
delivery and/or measurement and sale of natural gas from its interstate 
transmission pipeline system to certain customers for resale. El Paso 
states that they would remove such facilities and place in stock the 
salvable materials and scrap the nonsalvable items, without material 
change in its average cost-of-service. El Paso also states that they 
have examined the abandonment action proposed and anticipates no 
adverse environmental effects of each action that might be incurred, 
and should any occur, they would be minor and of a temporary nature.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after the 
Commission has issued this notice, 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 NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the request. If 
no protest is filed within the allowed time, 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 If a protest is filed and not withdrawn 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 NGA.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3553 Filed 2-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**EXHIBIT 15**

 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

Board of Directors and Shareholders

Cubic Corporation

 

We have reviewed the condensed consolidated balance sheet of Cubic Corporation as of March 31, 2011, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the three and six months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management.

 

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures, and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

 

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the condensed consolidated financial statements referred to above for them to be in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

 

We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet of Cubic Corporation as of September 30, 2010 and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein) and in our report dated December 8, 2010, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet at September 30, 2010, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.

 
|                    | /s/ ERNST & YOUNG   LLP |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                    |                             |
|                    |                             |
| San   Diego, California |                             |
| May 4,   2011      |                             |

 

----
#### Russell F. DE PEW, Appellant, v. The MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a foreign corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-729.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 6, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit
      32.2**











**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Croff Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerald L. Jensen,
      Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1)  This
      Report on Form 10-Q
      for the period ended June 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of
      section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)  I
      further certify to the
      best of my knowledge that the information contained in the Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Croff Enterprises, Inc.











Date:
      August 20,
      2007                                                                           By
/s/ Gerald L. Jensen


Gerald
      L. Jensen,


Acting
      Chief Financial
      Officer
NUMBER 13

- 13

- 00333

- CV



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

JO N CHRISTOPHER KRA A TZ

, Appellant,

v.

C.P.Z.

, Appellee.

On appeal from the 117 th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Chief Valdez and Justices Perkes and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

On July 2, 2013, appellant, Jon Christopher Kraatz , perfected an appeal from a

judgment rendered against him in favor of appellee, C.P.Z. On July 30, 2013, the Clerk

of this Court notified appellant that the clerk’s record in the above cause was originally2

due on July 29, 2013, and that the deputy distri ct clerk, Tiffany Garza, had notified this

Court that appellant failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk’s record. The

Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct

the defect, if it could be don e. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),( c). Appellant was

advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of

this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant has failed

to respond to this Court’s notice. Accordingly, the appe al is DISMISSED FOR WANT

OF PROSECUTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(b), (c).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed this

31st day of July , 201 4

.
#### Willie BAKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee (two cases).

Nos. K-314, N-560.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 12, 1971.

*329Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joseph W. DeMember, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Indictment was returned against defendant charging him with the crime of first degree murder. Upon a jury verdict of guilty of second degree murder, defendant was sentenced to twenty years. This Court granted a delayed appeal upon a finding that defendant had not been advised of his right of appeal.

We have fully reviewed defendant’s assertion that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. Such assertion is without merit. The record reveals without contradiction that defendant blasted his victim with a shotgun at short range. The question of self-defense was a factual issue supported by the evidence which the jury resolved against defendant. As an aside, we observe that the evidence was sufficient to have supported a conviction of first degree murder, and defendant was fortunate in escaping such a conviction.

The defendant’s other point pertaining to the admission of certain inflammatory photographs into evidence is likewise without merit because they constituted independent evidence that was material to the issue of decedent’s position at the time he met his demise as a result of defendant’s actions. Jackson v. State, 231 So.2d 839 (Fla.DCA 1st, 1970); and Williams v. State, 228 So.2d 377 (Fla.1969).

Affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Division of Marketing Practices

Craig Tregillus Direct Dial: (202) 326-2970
ctregillus @ftc.gov Facsimile: (202) 326-3395

August 21, 2007

T. Scott Gilligan, Esq.
Gilligan Law Offices
3734 Eastern Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45226

Dear Mr. Gilligan:

This letter responds to your inquiry about a prior staff opinion interpreting the FTC
Funeral Rule (“Rule”) which concluded, inter alia, that a funeral provider may not charge a
storage fee if a third party casket is delivered “several days before it is needed for a visitation or
funeral service.”' You ask whether the opinion applies only to “at need” arrangements made
after a death, as it indicates, or whether the same reasoning would also apply to prohibit a storage
fee if a third party casket were delivered shortly after “pre-need” funeral arrangements are made
by a consumer who “would not need the casket for some indeterminate time.”

The prior opinion was based on the prohibition in section 453.4(b)(1)Gi) of the Rule
which bars funeral providers from charging “any fee as a condition to furnishing any funeral
goods or funeral services to a person arranging a funeral” other than the basic services fee,
payments for the funeral goods and services selected, and payments for items required to meet
legal, cemetery or crematory requirements.” A related “safe harbor” provision in section
453.4(b)(2)(ii) of the Rule provides, however, that “[a] funeral provider shall not violate this
section by failing to comply with a request for a combination of goods or services which would
be impossible, impractical, or excessively burdensome to provide.”

It is staff’s opinion that a request for free storage of a third party casket made in
connection with pre-need arrangements would be “excessively burdensome.” Consequently, a
funeral provider would be protected by the safe harbor provision from liability for violating the
Rule by “failing to comply” with such a request and refusing to store a third party casket for free
for some indeterminate time.

' Staff Opinion to Joseph J. DellaVecchia, Jr. (July 12, 2007) at 1, available at
http://www ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/funerals/opinions/opinion07-4.pdf.

2 16 C.F.R. § 453.4(b)(1)Gi) (emphasis added).

3 16 CFR. § 453.4(b)(2)Gi).


T. Scott Gilligan, Esq.
Gilligan Law Offices
Page 2 of 2

As you know, the views expressed in this letter are those of FTC staff. They have not
been reviewed, approved or adopted by the Commission, and they are not binding on the
Commission or any individual Commissioner. However, they do reflect the views of FTC staff
charged with enforcement of the Funeral Rule. Staff Funeral Rule opinions are routinely posted
on the FTC website at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/funerals/staffopinions.shtm.

Sincerely,
/s/

Craig Tregillus
Funeral Rule Coordinator
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

August 26, 2005

Brian Byrne, Esq. 

Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton

2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006-1801

Re: The Dow Chemical Company/Union Carbide Corporation

 Docket No. C-3999

Dear Mr. Byrne:

On March 15, 2001, the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued a Decision

and Order (“Order”) to remedy the effects on competition of the acquisition of Union Carbide

Corporation by The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”). The Order became final as to Dow on

March 21, 2001. 

The Order requires, inter alia, Dow to divest assets and businesses relating to the

research, development, manufacture, sale, and distribution of ethanolamines to Ineos plc

(“Ineos”) pursuant to the Ineos Agreement. See Order ¶¶ III.B. and III.H. The Order also

requires Dow to divest assets and businesses relating to the Dow Gas Spec MDEA Business to

Ineos pursuant to the Ineos Agreement. See Order ¶¶ IV.B. and IV.H. The Ineos Agreement is

defined by Order ¶ I.AR., and includes all of the contracts between Dow and Ineos that divest

assets and businesses to Ineos. The Ineos Agreement is incorporated by reference into the Order,

and any failure to comply with the Ineos Agreement is a failure to comply with the Order. See

Order ¶¶ III.H and IV.H. The Ineos Agreement includes agreements requiring Dow to supply

Ineos with ethylene oxide from a Dow plant in Plaquemine, LA (“Ethylene Oxide Supply

Agreement”), and to supply Ineos with MDEA from a plant in Freeport, TX (“MDEA Supply

Agreement”). See Order ¶¶ I.AR.5 and I.AA.2..

On May 16, 2005, Dow filed the Petition Of The Dow Chemical Company For Approval

Of Certain Amendments To The Ineos Agreement (“Petition”) seeking the Commission’s prior

approval of modifications to the Ethylene Oxide Supply Agreement (“Proposed Ethylene Oxide

Supply Agreement”) and MDEA Supply Agreement (“Proposed MDEA Supply Agreement”).

This letter responds to the Petition. Dow’s Petition was placed on the public record to solicit

public comment on May 20, 2005, for 30 days. No comments were received. 

The Commission has considered Dow’s Petition, as well as other available information,

and has determined to approve each of the requested modifications. Any failure by Respondents

to comply with the Proposed Ethylene Oxide Supply Agreement or the Proposed MDEA Supply

Agreement shall constitute a failure to comply with the Order.
In making its determination, the Commission has relied upon the information submitted

and the representations made by Dow. 

By direction of the Commission.

C. Landis Plummer

 Acting Secretary
#### ROWLAND DX TRUCK STOP and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. Edward D. KIRBY.

No. 45106.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 13, 1969.

On Rehearing March 3, 1969.

Alben N. Hopkins, Daniel, Coker, Horton & Bell, Jackson, for appellant.

Douglas Abraham, Greenville, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

ETHRIDGE, Chief Justice:

The Workmen’s Compensation Commission, upholding its attorney-referee, awarded workmen’s compensation benefits to Edward D. Kirby, appellee, and its order was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Washington County. This Court also affirmed without opinion. Appellant’s petition for rehearing, or alternative motion to correct judgment, is directed principally to apportionment.

The Commission found that Kirby suffered an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, being a myocardial infarction or heart attack; that claimant had pre-existing arteriosclerosis, which contributed fifty percent to his disability; and that he was permanently and totally disabled from the date of the injury, August 12, 1964. It awarded him permanent and total disability benefits from August 13, 1964, without apportionment, until the date of the attorney-referee’s order on May 3, 1967, and subsequently with apportionment, until such time as claimant has received compensation for a period of time not to exceed 450 weeks from and after August 12, 1964, and/or the maximum of $12,500, whichever is the lesser in amount.

However, the Commission’s order must be amended and modified in the following respects: Apportionment of permanent total disability benefits shall begin on August 12, 1964, the date of injury, rather than the date of the attorney-referee’s order. Maximum benefits shall also be apportioned. This is in accord with the rule in Cockrell Banana Company v. Harris, 212 So.2d 581 (Miss.1968). It has been followed and applied in Mississippi Stationery Co. v. Segal, 214 So.2d 820 (Miss.1968); Delta Millwork, Inc. v. Terry, 216 So.2d 542 (Miss.1968); Mississippi Association of Insurance Agents *866v. Seay, 218 So.2d 413 (Miss.1969), and Knox Glass, Inc. v. Kennedy, 218 So.2d 881 (Miss.1969). In all other respects the order of the Commission is affirmed.

In summary, the petition for rehearing is sustained in part, to the extent that it provided for apportionment from the date of the attorney-referee’s order and did not apportion maximum benefits. The Commission’s order is amended to provide for apportionment of weekly benefits from the date of injury, which the Commission found rendered claimant totally and permanently disabled, and the statutory maximum ($12,-500) is also apportioned to provide for a maximum recovery of $6,250, whichever is the lesser in amount.

Petition for rehearing sustained in part, order of Workmen’s Compensation Commission amended, and as amended, affirmed.

All Justices concur, except RODGERS, J., who dissents.
10-25 Exhibit 1998 AYE Amend - 12.31.13


Exhibit 10-25


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
ALLEGHENY ENERGY, INC.
1998 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
EFFECTIVE MAY 14, 1998
AMENDED AND RESTATED AS OF JANUARY 1, 2008


WHEREAS, Allegheny Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended and restated as of January 1, 2008 (the “Plan”);
WHEREAS, the Company became a wholly owned subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp. (“FirstEnergy”) pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of February 10, 2010, as amended as of June 4, 2010, by and among FirstEnergy, Element Merger Sub, Inc. and the Company (the “Merger Agreement”);
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, FirstEnergy authorized certain officers of FirstEnergy to amend or modify plans maintained by the Company with regard to administrative or governance matters;
WHEREAS, Section 9.16 of the Plan provides that the Plan may be amended at any time with certain limitations that are not applicable for this Amendment No. 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of  January 1, 2012, as follows:
		
	1.
	Section 2.18 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




“Sec. 2.18    ”Fair Market Value” means an amount based on a reasonable method, as may be determined by the Committee, including a price based on the opening, closing, actual, high, low, average selling prices, or on the average of the high and low sales prices of the common stock as reported on the composite tape of the NYSE for the date in which the determination of the fair market value is made or, if there are no sales of common stock on that date, then on the next preceding date on which there were sales of common stock.  If Shares are not publicly traded, Fair Market Value shall be determined by the Committee in such manner as it deems appropriate.  Notwithstanding anything in this Plan to the contrary, “Fair Market Value” shall be determined in a manner consistent with exemption from, and avoidance of adverse tax consequences under, Code Section 409A and, with respect to Incentive Stock Options, also in a manner consistent with Code Section 422.”


		
	2.
	Except as otherwise amended by this Amendment No. 1, all other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, FirstEnergy has caused its duly authorized officer to executive this Amendment No. 1 of the Plan on behalf of the Company to evidence its adoption on  January 1, 2012.


   EXECUTED ON BEHALF OF ALLEGHENY ENERGY, INC.                                            BY FIRSTENERGY, CORP.    


	
					
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	/s/ Anthony J. Alexander,
	 
	 

	 
	 
	Anthony J. Alexander,
	 
	 

	 
	 
	President and Chief Executive
	 
	 

	 
	 
	Officer of FirstEnergy Corp.
Exhibit 99.02




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


I, Peter M. Kandaris certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Uintah Mountain Copper Company on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Uintah Mountain Copper Company.

By:       /s/
   -----------------------------
Name: Peter Kandaris
Title:   Chief Executive Officer







I, Pamela Kandaris-Cha, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of Uintah Mountain Copper Company on Form 10-KSB for the year
ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Uintah Mountain Copper Company.

By: /s/
   --------------------------
Name: Pamela Kandaris-Cha
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33436]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 971208298-7298-01; I.D. 112097B]


Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; 
Correction

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is correcting the date by which comments must be received 
about the proposed 1998 harvest specifications for the Groundfish 
Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. The correct date is 
January 14, 1998.

DATES: Comments must be received by January 14, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Kinsolving 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on December 
15, 1997 (62 FR 65638), that set forth the proposed annual TACs, 
prohibited species catch allowances, seasonal allowances of the pollock 
TAC, and amounts for the pollock and sablefish Community Development 
Quota reserve.

Need for Correction

    As published, the proposed rule invited comments and contained the 
date by which comments must be received. The date is in error and NMFS 
is hereby correcting that error.

Correction of Publication

    In the December 15, 1997, issue of the Federal Register (62 FR 
65638), in the third column under the DATES heading, the wording should 
be corrected to read as follows:

DATES: Comments must be received by January 14, 1998.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: December 17, 1997.
David L. Evans,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 97-33436 Filed 12-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F