alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34999-35000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15784]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-2032-000]


Wildcat Ranch Wind Project, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Wildcat Ranch Wind Project, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is August 7, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC

[[Page 35000]]

Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#01474453424e6f6d686f64527471716e737541676473622f666e77"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="60262532232f0e0c090e05331510100f121420060512034e070f16">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 18, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15784 Filed 7-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
251 La. 744

#### Willie EASTERLING v. EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORPORATION and Ralph J. Trahan.

No. 49037.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 2, 1968.

In re: The Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited, and Ralph J. Trahan applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 203 So.2d 852.

The application is denied. There appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.
#### AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSONVILLE v. BRANTLEY.

No. 36019.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1967.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF OUR CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Perry Law, certify that:



1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Smart-tek Solutions, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of

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

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.



/s/ Perry Law

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

Perry Law

Chief Financial Officer



February
13, 2007
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1442 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the minimum low-income housing tax credit rate for unsubsidized buildings and 

to provide a minimum 4 percent credit rate for existing buildings. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2013 

Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. ROBERTS, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. KING, Mr. 

CARDIN, Mr. BROWN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. 

FRANKEN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. HARKIN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. SCHATZ, Ms. WARREN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. MARKEY, and Mr. SANDERS) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

permanent the minimum low-income housing tax credit 

rate for unsubsidized buildings and to provide a minimum 4 percent credit rate for existing buildings. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving the Low 

5 Income Housing Tax Credit Rate Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1442 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF MINIMUM LOW2 INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT RATE FOR 

3 CERTAIN BUILDINGS. 

4 (a) PERMANENT EXTENSION.—Paragraph (2) of sec5 tion 42(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend6 ed— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘TEMPORARY MINIMUM CREDIT

8 RATE’’ in the heading and inserting ‘‘MINIMUM

9 CREDIT RATE’’, and 

10 (2) by striking ‘‘with respect to housing credit 

11 dollar amount allocations made before January 1, 

12 2014’’ in subparagraph (A). 

13 (b) MINIMUM 4 PERCENT CREDIT RATE FOR CER14 TAIN EXISTING BUILDINGS.—Subsection (b) of section 42 

15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

16 (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para17 graph (4), and 

18 (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol19 lowing new paragraph: 

20 ‘‘(3) MINIMUM CREDIT RATE FOR NON-FEDER21 ALLY SUBSIDIZED EXISTING BUILDINGS.—In the 

22 case of any existing building— 

23 ‘‘(A) which is placed in service by the tax24 payer after the date of the enactment of this 

25 paragraph, and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1442 IS

1 ‘‘(B) which is not federally subsidized for 

2 the taxable year, 

3 the applicable percentage shall be not less than 4 

4 percent.’’. 

5 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

6 this section shall apply to buildings placed in service after 

7 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23

             Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

 We have issued our report dated October 13, 2006, accompanying the
 consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of VPGI
 Corp. on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2006.  We hereby consent to
 the incorporation by reference of said report in the following Registration
 Statements of VPGI Corp.:

 Form S-3 (File No. 333-97809 effective August 13, 2002);
 Form S-3 (File No. 333-68326 effective August 13, 2002);
 Form S-3 (File No. 333-62680 effective July 13, 2001);
 Form S-3 (File No. 333-47692 effective October 25, 2000);
 Form S-8 (File No. 333-39358 effective June 15, 2000);
 Form S-3 (File No. 333-31952 effective March 21, 2000);
 Form S-2 (File No. 333-06447 effective September 30, 1996).

 /s/  CF & Co., L.L.P.

 CF & Co., L.L.P.

 Dallas, Texas
 October 13, 2006
252 La. 119

#### Silas EDWARDS v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA and Charles H. Wegmann, Jr.

No. 49204.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 19, 1968.

In re: Silas Edwards applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 207 So.2d 222.

The application is denied. According to the facts, as found to he by the Court of Appeal, there appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.
### REGULATORY DOCKET NO: FAA 2015-1766-001

The Purpose of this petition is to amend Addendum 1 . Exemption No: FAA 2015-1766-001, TITLED, INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF THE PETITIONER to include the following interests, filming of special events, film sets, scripted and unscripted television sets and landscape, conducting power lin e inspection, aerial mapping, surveying and search an d rescue specifically targeting:

• Aerial videography of power lines.

• Aerial event photography.

• Aerial videography of Construction Development Site s.

• Aerial Film & Television production, closed set.

• Aerial Videography of Search and Rescue.
Previous exemption requirements as submitted for re lief in addendum 1; still apply to this amendment. All other terms and conditions and equipment still remain in effect as previously approved.
Respectfully submitted by,

Brian Morson 12135 Sand Pebble Way Orlando, FL 32824 407-432-5364 BBritboy@gmail.com
p. 1



# OAR Box 1787
Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 39 ) ll-B-2 4
Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/200810:22:19 AM

Sheet 39 of 147UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y /f^U S ( l<( ¥3 P. 2 

### A-90-3 7 4.2 4

MEMORANDUM SUBJECT : Ne e Emissio nIncreas e Unde r PS D FROM : 

# um i
APR 3 01996 !
EP A AI R DOCKE T

TO : Sheldo nMeyers , Direcco r

Offic e o f Ai r Qualic y Plannin g an

dStandard s Davi d P . Howekamp , Direcco r Ai r Managemen c Division- Regio nI X
Thi s i s i nrespons e c o you r mem o dated*Ma y

3 , 198 3 c o Kathlee nM . Sennec c concernin g ne e emissio nincrease s unde r PSD . I hav e looke dint o ch e quescio no f inconsistenc y i nincerprecacio n o f ch e de minimu s provision s o f che PS D regulation s a s raise di n you r memorandum , an dhav e conclude dcha t ch e incerprecacio nmad e b y ch e Stationar y

Sourc e Complianc e Divisio ni s che mos c pracclcal . Th e issue , a s I understand ic , i s wheche r source s an dconcro l agencie s nee d c o aggregac e smal l change s (i.e. , chos e below d e minimu s levels ) whic hoccu r ove r cim e s o cha c onc e che cumulativ e effee c o f ch e change s exceed s d e minimu s levels , PS D i s criggered . Th e preambl e c o ch e PS D regulacion s implie dcha c chi s aggregacio n woul db e required . However , che Agenc y ha s maintaine dsinc e 198 1 cha c n o suc haggregatio ni s required . Thi s incerprecacio nva s firs c articulate di na memo fro m SSC C (che nDSSE ) c o Regio nVI I date d Januar y

22 , 1981 , andha s beenreicerace di nmemorand a c o Regio nI Xan

dXsinc e chen . Th e SSC D incerprecacio nwa s concurre d i nb

y ch e Offic e o f Genera l Counse l (Pece r Vyckoff ) a s legall y

supporcabl e sinc e ch e regulacion s themselve s ar e no c clear . Th e polic y

consideration s leading c o chi s incerprecacio nwere : (a ) aggregacio ncoul dImpos e a significan t resourc e burde nonsource s whic hmigh t neve r become subjec t 

### co PSD . (b ) aggregacio nwoul donl y requir e inscallacio no f RAC T leve l concrol s o

nche las c piec e o f equipmen c whic h criggere d ch e review , wic ha minimu m ai r qualic y benefit , an

d (c ) ai r qualic y

woul d b e protecte dsinc e ches e change s woul dconsume incremen t i nan y event . COMCURftEMCE S

SJRMAM S \ OAT g 

### W~&-2-^

»ua* i

SP A Po m 132 M 02.79 ) /

r ._ ' s 

### &-A t/l/<?3 •+ • i OFFICIA L FIL = COP YP. 3

I nconclusion , I fee l tha t th e ircerrrccatic n rac e b v SSC D c c b e che mos t reasonable
. Hovevor , I recopr.iz e tha t a clarifyin g amendmen t t c the PC D rt-T/uIatio r i s advisabl e and wil l includ e i t a s par t o f th e nex t se c o f prooose c change s c o ch e PS D regulations . I f yo u wcul d like to discus s chi s further , pleas e contac t me .
cc : Darry l Tyle r E d Reic h Pete r Wyckof f

En-341:R.Biondi:kw : Dis k RA S # 3 Ric h Draf t 5-31-8 3 382-283 1 Rm . 320 2 Fina l 6-2-8 3

•^
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fred Van Gorder, Appellant.

[722 NYS2d 844]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of attempted rape in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.35) and endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]), defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. We disagree. At trial, the People presented the testimony of the victim and a witness concerning the attempted rape of the victim, and an expert explained the victim’s three-year delay in reporting the crime. It cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J. — Attempted Rape, 1st Degree.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Kehoe, Burns and Lawton, JJ.
p.1 

OAR Box 1787 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

39) ll-B-24 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/200810:22:19 AM Sheet 39 of 147 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

/f^U S(l<( ¥3 

P.2 

A-90-37 

4.24 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Nee Emission Increase Under PSD 

FROM: 

umi 

APR 3 01996! 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

TO: 

Sheldon Meyers, Direccor 

Office of Air Qualicy Planning and Standards 

David P. Howekamp, Direccor 

Air Managemenc Division - Region IX 

This is in response co your memo dated*May 3, 1983 co 

Kathleen M. Sennecc concerning nee emission increases under PSD. 

I have looked into che quescion of inconsistency in incerprecacion 

of che de minimus provisions of che PSD regulations as raised in 

your memorandum, and have concluded chat che incerprecacion made 

by che Stationary Source Compliance Division is che mosc pracclcal. 

The issue, as I understand ic, is whecher sources and concrol 

agencies need co aggregace small changes (i.e., chose below de 

minimus levels) which occur over cime so chac once che cumulative 

effeec of che changes exceeds de minimus levels, PSD is criggered. 

The preamble co che PSD regulacions implied chac chis aggregacion 

would be required. However, che Agency has maintained since 1981 

chac no such aggregation is required. This incerprecacion vas 

firsc articulated in a memo from SSCC (chen DSSE) co Region VII 

dated January 22, 1981, and has been reiceraced in memoranda 

co Region IX and X since chen. The SSCD incerprecacion was 

concurred in by che Office of General Counsel (Pecer Vyckoff) as 

legally supporcable since che regulacions themselves are noc clear. 

The policy considerations leading co chis incerprecacion were: 

(a) aggregacion could Impose a significant resource 

burden on sources which might never become subject 

co PSD. 

(b) aggregacion would only require inscallacion of RACT 

level concrols on che lasc piece of equipmenc which 

criggered che review, wich a minimum air qualicy 

benefit, and 

(c) air qualicy would be protected since chese changes 

would consume increment in any event. 

COMCURftEMCES 

SJRMAMS \ 

OATg

 W ~&-2-^ 

»ua* i 

SPA Pom 132M 02.79) 

/ r ._ 's 

&-A 

t/l/<?3 

• + • 

i 

OFFICIAL FIL= COPY 
P.3 

In conclusion, I feel that the ircerrrccaticn race 

bv SSCD cc be che most reasonable. Hovevor, I recopr.ize 

that a clarifying amendment tc the PCD rt-T/uIatior is advisable 

and will include it as part of the next sec of prooosec changes 

co che PSD regulations. If you wculd like to discuss chis 

further, please contact me. 

cc: Darryl Tyler 

Ed Reich 

Peter Wyckoff 

En-341:R.Biondi:kw: 

Disk RAS #3 Rich 

Draft 5-31-83 382-2831 Rm. 3202 Final 6-2-83 

• ^
Order entered October 16, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00007-CR

No. 05-14-00008-CR

SENRICK WILKERSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-01183-J, F10-01184-J

ORDER

The Court DENIES appellant’s October 6, 2014 pro se “Motion to Compel Dallas 

County to Produce Reasons for No Arraignments and No First Initial Appearance.” We further 

DENY appellant’s October 15, 2014 pro se “Petitioner’s Request to Receive Designation of 

Items Pursuant to the Michael Morton Act of 2012.” The appeals before the Court are from the 

trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction DNA testing. The Court has 

received verification from counsel that appellant has been provided the record related to the trial 

court’s ruling on the motion.

The appeal will be submitted in due course. 
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to 

Michael Mowla and Michael Casillas.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first-class mail, to Senrick 

Wilkerson, TDCJ No. 1885146, Ramsey I Unit, 1100 F.M. 655, Rosharon, Texas 77583.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MACKIE
DESIGNS INC.'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         916,007
<SECURITIES>                                 6,365,671
<RECEIVABLES>                               31,179,021
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,439,624)
<INVENTORY>                                 38,300,911
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            79,464,542
<PP&E>                                      35,767,112
<DEPRECIATION>                            (12,258,502)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             117,427,146
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       44,694,332
<BONDS>                                     18,418,231
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    26,600,172
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,060,243
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               117,427,146
<SALES>                                     30,959,373
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            30,959,373
<CGS>                                       20,755,005
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,755,005
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,183,864
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (853,632)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,738,224)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (392,163)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,369,196)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,369,196)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
#### Gloris June Hunt BURKE et al., Appellants, v. Kenneth Paul MILLER, Appellee.

No. 72-395.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 16, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Robert S. Hewitt, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1433 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1433

To require that members of the Armed Forces who were killed or wounded 
  in the attack that occurred at a recruiting station in Little Rock, 
 Arkansas, on June 1, 2009, are treated in the same manner as members 
              who are killed or wounded in a combat zone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2013

Mr. Boozman (for himself and Mr. Pryor) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require that members of the Armed Forces who were killed or wounded 
  in the attack that occurred at a recruiting station in Little Rock, 
 Arkansas, on June 1, 2009, are treated in the same manner as members 
              who are killed or wounded in a combat zone.

    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 ``Honoring Ezeagwula and Long Act'' or 
the ``HEAL Act''.

SEC. 2. EQUITABLE TREATMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES KILLED OR 
              WOUNDED IN LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, RECRUITING STATION 
              ATTACK.

    For purposes of all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and 
policies, the members of the Armed Forces who were killed or wounded in 
the attack that occurred at a recruiting station in Little Rock, 
Arkansas, on June 1, 2009, shall be deemed to have been killed or 
wounded in a combat zone as the result of an act of an enemy of the 
United States.
                                 <all>
```