alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32971]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP94-29-003]


Paiute Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

December 12, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 4, 1997, Paiute Pipeline Company 
(Paiute) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff sheets, to be effective 
January 1, 1998.

Eighth Revised Sheet No. 10
Third Revised Sheet No. 21
Third Revised Sheet No. 63
Second Revised Sheet No. 63A
Seventh Revised Sheet No. 161

    Paiute asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
the Commission's order issued August 1, 1996 in Docket No. CP94-29-000, 
et al.
    Paiute states that the Commission's order, among other things, 
authorized Paiute to construct and operate certain pipeline loop and 
pressure regulating and measurement facilities, referred to as the Lake 
Tahoe Area expansion facilities. According to Paiute, the purpose of 
the expansion facilities is to expand the delivery capacity of Paiute's 
system between the Wadsworth Junction and the terminus of the North 
Tahoe Lateral to enable Paiute to deliver an additional 10,333 Dth/d to 
Southwest Gas Corporation--Northern California and an additional 2,455 
Dth/d to Southwest Gas Corporation--Northern Nevada at its Incline 
Village delivery points. Paiute states that the Commission's order 
authorized Paiute to recover the cost of service associated with the 
expansion project by means of an incremental rate surcharge to be 
assessed to the two shippers. By its filing, Paiute proposes to 
establish the initial incremental rate and tariff sheets be permitted 
to become effective on January 1, 1998, in order to coincide with the 
expected in-service date of the expansion construction project.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file on or before January 2, 1998, a motion to intervene or a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with the requirements of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 and 
385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). 
All protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to 
make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a party in any 
hearing therein must file a motion to intervene in accordance with the 
Commission's Rules. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32971 Filed 12-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Haskel LIBERMAN and Leatrice Liberman, Appellants, v. GABLES LIGHTING FIXTURE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-670.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 1, 1970.

Daniel I. Wincor, Miami Beach, for appellants.

Sanford M. Swerdlin, Clewiston, and Blair I. Zimmett, Miami, for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

Reversed. See §§ 48.031 and 49.011, Fla. Stat., F.S.A.; and Harris v. City of Sarasota, 132 Fla. 568, 181 So. 366 (1938).
EXHIBIT 10.8(h)


 


DESCRIPTION OF 2014 SALARIES FOR


 2013 NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS


 


Annualized salary rates effective January 1, 2014 for the current
executive officers of the Company who are expected to be named in the executive compensation disclosures of the Company’s
2014 proxy statement in relation to fiscal year 2013 (“2013 Named Executive Officers”) are:


 








	Officer Name	 	2014 Cash Salary
	D. Bryan Jordan	 	$760,000	 
	William C. (B.J.) Losch III	 	425,000	 
	Michael E. Kisber	 	600,000	 
	David T. Popwell	 	450,000	 
	Charles T. Tuggle, Jr.	 	475,000	 










 





Salary rates generally continue in effect until they are changed.
The cash salary rates for 2014 listed above did not change from those in effect for 2013.
#### Henry Cleveland BRADLEY, Jr., Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Adult Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. N-500.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 3, 1970.

Henry Cleveland Bradley, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks a full appellate review via habeas corpus of his conviction on charges of first degree murder. The petition alleged that at the time of his trial, he was not made aware of his right to appeal his conviction and life sentence. We issued our rule nisi and after return thereto appointed Honorable Guyte P. McCord, Jr., Circuit Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit for Florida, as Commissioner for the purpose of taking testimony bearing upon the question of petitioner’s awareness of his right to appeal and whether he knowingly waived such right.

The Commissioner took testimony of the judge presiding at the trial, the petitioner, the defense attorney and the clerk of the court who was present at the time judgment and sentence were pronounced. Based on such testimony, the Commissioner found that the defense attorney discussed the question of appeal with the petitioner at the time and that petitioner was satisfied with the outcome of the trial in that he *424received a recommendation of mercy rather than a possible death sentence and that he was not interested in taking an appeal. The Commissioner also found from petitioner’s own testimony that he was advised of his right to appeal on the day he was sentenced.

In view of the Commissioner’s report, it is our view and we so hold that petitioner was advised of his right to appeal and that he knowingly waived the same and nowhere has there been any showing that petitioner’s right to appeal was thwarted by state action.

Petitioner not having sustained his contention that his right to appeal was thwarted by state action, the rule nisi heretofore issued is discharged and the petition is denied.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JTJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6100

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTONIO WILSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CR-92-35-H, CA-95-790-5-H)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 3, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Appellant's

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are without merit. See

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). There is no basis

for Appellant's contention that the district court amended the indictment through its jury instructions. Further, there is no support for the claim that this application of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

(1994) was unconstitutional. See United States v. Atkinson, 513

F.2d 38 (4th Cir. 1975). Consequently, counsel cannot have been

ineffective for his failure to pursue these claims. See Fitzgerald

v. Thompson, 943 F.2d 463 (4th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S.

1112 (1992). 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
February 6, 2001

No. 00-8431 (00A669).

#### In re Lingar.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7470

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JULIO CESAR PEREZ, a/k/a Jose Luis Villarreal, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-96-305, CA-98-1494-3-17) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 24, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lionel Aron Pena, Sr., Edinburg, Texas, for Appellant. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Julio Cesar Perez seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Perez , Nos. CR-96-305; CA-98-1494-3-17 (D.S.C. Sept. 23, 1998). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2630 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2630

                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Sunday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-one

                                 An Act

 
   To amend the Temporary Reauthorization and Study of the Emergency 
  Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act to extend until October 2021, a 
            temporary order for fentanyl-related substances.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Extending Temporary Emergency 
Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY ORDER FOR FENTANYL-RELATED SUBSTANCES.
    Effective as if included in the enactment of the Temporary 
Reauthorization and Study of the Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl 
Analogues Act (Public Law 116-114), section 2 of such Act (Public Law 
116-114) is amended by striking ``May 6, 2021'' and inserting ``October 
22, 2021''.
SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that 
such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Exhibit 16


KPMG
21700 Oxnard Street, Suite 1200
Woodland Hills, CA 91367



May 9, 2001

Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C.  20549


Ladies and Gentlemen:

We were previously principal accountants for Reinhold Industries, Inc. and,
under the date of March 16, 2001, we reported on the consolidated financial
statements of Reinhold Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries as of and for the years
ended December 31, 2000 and 1999. On May 1, 2001, our appointment as principal
accountants was terminated. We have read Reinhold Industries, Inc.'s statements
included under Item 4 of its Form 8-K dated May 7, 2001, and we agree with such
statements, except that we are not in a position to agree or disagree with
Reinhold Industries, Inc.'s statement that the change was approved by written
consent of the Board of Directors or that Ernst & Young LLP was engaged as the
Company's new certifying accountant.

Very truly yours,

/s/ KPMG LLP
#### Samuel Thomas WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-529.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 13, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2

I, Thomas N. Chewning, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Consolidated Natural Gas Company;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d- 15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 3, 2005
 
 
         /s/ Thomas N. Chewning
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J UA N B UR GU E NO , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 11- 10569 D . C. N o . 3 : 1 0 - c r - 0 0 0 8 9 - RCJ ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da R obe rtC l i ve J one s , C hi e f Judge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A ugus t8, 2012 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , B E R Z O N , an dIK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Ju a n B u r g u e n o ap p e a ls f r o m th e 1 2 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e df o llo w in g h is gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on f ordi s tr i but i on of

ac ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S. C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( v i i i ) . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. 

# FI LED AU G 15 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 10569 2 § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f

f i rm. B urgu eno con t ends thathe re ce i ved i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l be c aus e hi s a tt orne ydi d nota de qua t e l yi nf orm hi m tha the w oul d be s ubj e c tt o a m a n d a to rym in im u m s e n te n c e o f 1 2 0 m o n th s , a s h e w a s in e lig ib le f o rth e s a f e ty va l ve . T he r e c or d doe s note s t abl i s h tha tB ur ge uno w a s i na de qua t e l yi nf orm e d by coun se l that , because of hi s c ri m i nal hi st ory, he w ou l d b e s ubj ec tt o the m andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence . AF F I RME D.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-27-1996
<CASH>                                           2,496
<SECURITIES>                                     3,069
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,614
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,434
<INVENTORY>                                     33,652
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,409
<PP&E>                                         339,456
<DEPRECIATION>                                 170,539
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 299,770
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,453
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,887
<OTHER-SE>                                     164,355
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   299,770
<SALES>                                        104,668
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               104,668
<CGS>                                           28,751
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  107,263
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,018
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,366)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,246)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,120)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,120)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)
</TABLE>
ljpc-ex101_276.htm



Exhibit 10.1

 



August 16, 2021

 

Larry Edwards

Chief Executive Officer

La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company ledwards@ljpc.com

 

Re:Amendment to Employment Offer Letter Dear Larry:

This letter agreement amends certain terms of your employment offer letter (the “Offer Letter”), dated July 27, 2020, between you and La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company ("La Jolla"). Effective as of the date of this letter, Section 7.b. of the Offer Letter is amended and restated as follows:

 


	
 
	
b.
	
If La Jolla terminates your employment without Cause, or you terminate your employment for Good Reason within 12 months after a Change In Control Event (as defined in Attachment A), then: (1) you will receive as severance pay an amount equal to eighteen (18) months of your then­current base salary (subject to all applicable federal, state and local tax withholdings, and payable over a eighteen­month period in accordance with La Jolla's regular payroll practices); (2) you will receive 100% of your then­current annual Target Bonus (subject to all applicable federal, state and local taxes and withholdings and payable in a lump sum); and (3) La Jolla will pay your COBRA premiums for medical, dental and vision insurance for you, your spouse and covered dependents, provided that you are eligible for and elect COBRA coverage, until the earlier of: (i) eighteen (18) months after your employment ends; or (ii) the date that you become employed by a new employer.




 

All other terms of the Offer Letter remain unchanged.

 

Please countersign below to acknowledge the foregoing amendment to the Offer Letter. Thank you for your many contributions to the success of La Jolla.

 

Sincerely,

 


	
	
/s/ Kevin Tang

	
Kevin Tang

	
Chairman of the Board




 

ACCEPTED:

 


	
/s/ Larry Edwards
	
 
	
8/17/21

	
Larry Edwards
	
 
	
Date
1

Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Shane Young [SWyoung@spi-ind.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 6:30 AM

To: Kelly, Shaheerah

Subject: RE: SPI Anderson Project

Good Morning Shaheerah,

I see based on the news that the government went into shutdown last night. How will that effect our project? Can you

give me any feedback as to the status of the PSD permit?

Best Regards

Shane Young

Sierra Pacific Industries

19758  Riverside Ave

Anderson Ca. 96007

P 530‐378‐8356

C 530‐604‐0025

swyoung@spi‐ind.com

From: Kelly, Shaheerah [mailto:Kelly.Shaheerah@epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 3:08 PM 

To: Shane Young 

Subject: SPI Anderson Project 

Hi Shane,

Thanks for answering my questions about the facility by phone this afternoon.  As a follow up, can you please describe

“flame stabilization” as it relates to the proposed biomass boiler.  

Best regards,

************************************ 

Shaheerah Kelly 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

Permits Office, Air Division 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Phone: 415-947-4156 

Fax: 415-947-3579 

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov
#### Larry Thomas DAUGHTRY, an infant by and through his father and next friend, Frank Daughtry, and Frank Daughtry and Dorothy Daughtry, individually, Appellants, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., a foreign corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-270.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 27, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>   1




EXHIBIT 23(a)




                        Consent of Independent Auditors'




The Board of Directors
Insilco Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements of the
Insilco Corporation Employee Thrift Plan, the 1993 Nonemployee Director Stock
Incentive Plan and the 1993 Long-term Incentive Plan on Form S-8 of Insilco
Corporation of our report dated January 30, 1998, except as to note 21, which is
as of June 8, 1998 and note 2, which is as of July 7, 1998, relating to the 
consolidated balance sheets of Insilco Corporation and subsidiaries as of 
December 31, 1997, and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of 
operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, and the related schedule, 
which report appears in the December 31, 1997, annual report on Form 10-K/A 
No. 2 of Insilco Corporation.



                                                         KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Columbus, Ohio
July 7, 1998