alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2  AMENDMENT AND RENEWAL OF SERVICE CONTRACT NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY AND  ____________________________________   This Amendment and Renewal of Service Contract (Agreement) is made and entered into as of the 31st of December 2006, by and between Northeast Utilities Service Company (Service Company) and _________________________ (Associate Company).  WHEREAS, under the terms of the Service Contract by and between Service Company and Associate Company, Service Company is willing to render certain services to Associate Company at cost, determined in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (the 35 Act); and  WHEREAS, the 35 Act was repealed in 2006, and jurisdiction over certain of Service Companys activities was transferred from the SEC to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the Federal Power Act, as amended (the Act), including the provision of services for affiliated companies at cost; and  WHEREAS, the Service Contract between Service Company and Associate Company expires as of December 31, 2006; and  WHEREAS, both parties deem it to be in the their best interests to renew the Service Contract for an additional period of one year on the same terms and conditions and in accordance with the requirements of FERC.  NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual agreements herein contained, it is agreed as follows:  1. Amendment of Service Contract.  The Service Contract between Service Company and Associate Company is hereby amended as follows:  (a) All references to the Act in the Service Contract and attachments shall be deemed to refer to the Federal Power Act.  (b) The reference to the SEC in Section 4 of the Service Contract shall be deleted and replaced with FERC.  (c) The phrase Rule 91 of the SEC contained in Section 3 of the Service Contract and on Appendix A shall be replaced with the phrase applicable rules and requirements of FERC.  2. Renewal of Service Contract.  (a) The Service Contract between Service Company and Associate Company, as heretofore amended, is hereby renewed as of January 1, 2007, for a period of one year.  (b) Except as modified and amended by this Agreement, all terms and conditions of the Service Contract shall continue in full force and effect during such renewal period.    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized, all as of the date first above written.   [COMPANY NAME]Attest:By: _________________________________Name:Title:______________________________Secretary
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1984. ALAN KONWINSKI v. THE STATE.

A16A1985. ALAN KONWINSKI v. THE STATE.

In 2009, Alan Konwinski pled guiltyto rape, two counts of aggravated sodomy,

and sexual exploitation of a minor. He subsequently filed a pro se motion to set aside

a void sentence and withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court denied the motion on

May 18, 2015. Konwinski filed his notice of appeal on July 1, 2015.1 On January 15,

2016, Konwinski filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The trial court denied

this motion on April 11, 2016. In Case No. A16A1984, Konwinski directly appeals

from the May 18, 2015 order denying his motion to set aside a void sentence and

withdraw his guilty plea. In Case No. A16A1985, Konwinski directly appeals from

the April 11, 2016 order denying his pauper status. We lack jurisdiction.

Pretermitting whether Konwinski was entitled to a direct appeal from the May

18, 2015 order, to be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry

of the order on appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a

notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. See

Couch v. United PaperworkersIntl. Union, 224 Ga. App. 721 (482 SE2d 704) (1997). 

Because Konwinski filed his notice of appeal 44 days after entry of the order he seeks

to appeal, it is untimely. Accordingly, Konwinski’s appeal in Case No. A16A1984

is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

In the absence of a valid appeal, the question of whether Konwinski may

1

It appears that Konwinski attempted to file a notice of appeal earlier, but the

notice of appeal was not officially filed until July 1, 2016.

July 11, 2016
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is moot. See Randolph County v. Johnson, 282

Ga. 160 (1) (646 SE2d 261) (2007) ("An appeal becomes moot if the rights insisted

upon could not be enforced by a judicial determination."). And an appeal of an issue

that has become moot is subject to dismissal. See OCGA § 5-6-48 (b) (3). Thus

Konwinski’s direct appeal in Case No. A16A1985 is DISMISSED as MOOT.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/11/2016
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  First Quarter 1996 and 1995
                                                                   
                                                              
 Area                                                        
                                         First    First  Standard   Standard
                                       quarter  quarter  error on   error on
                                         1996     1995  1996 rate difference
                                                                            
 United States.......................    65.1     64.2      0.2       0.2  
                                                                          
   Inside MAs........................    63.0      NA       0.2        NA
    In central cities................    49.2      NA       0.3        NA
    Not in central cities (suburbs)..    71.9      NA       0.2        NA
   Outside MAs.......................    73.8      NA       0.4        NA
                                                                         
  Northeast..........................    61.4     61.9      0.4       0.6
  Midwest............................    70.4     67.9      0.4       0.5
  South..............................    67.5     66.1      0.3       0.4
  West...............................    58.9     58.9      0.4       0.6
 
 NA Not available.  We are working to correct a problem with the first
 quarter 1995 metropolitan/nonmetropolitan data.  We will issue any
 revisions as soon as they become available.
   
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
# C_2011309EN.01000102.xml

| 21.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6296 — Triton/Compo)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 309/02

On 23 September 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6296. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6296. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00173-CR

MARK EDMONDSON APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

On May 6, 2011, Appellant Mark Edmondson, proceeding pro se, filed a 

notice of appeal, attempting to appeal from a March 31, 2011 order denying his 

request for appointment of counsel to assist him in filing a motion for forensic 

DNA testing of evidence. Edmondson’s notice of appeal was one day late, and 

he filed a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal concurrently with 

his notice of appeal.

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

On April 28, 2011, unbeknownst to Edmondson, the trial court had granted 

Edmondson’s motion to vacate and set aside the order denying his request for 

appointment of counsel, and the trial court appointed John Stickels as counsel for 

Edmondson. 

Edmondson has now filed a letter, asking that his notice of appeal “be 

disregarded and/or dismissed.” We construe Edmondson’s letter as a motion to 

dismiss the appeal. The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of 

appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having 

been delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss 

the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: June 16, 2011
Notification of the Interim Final FIP – Signed by Lisa Jackson , Notification of the Interim Final FIP – Signed by Lisa Jackson ,EPA 

Administrator

40CFR Part CFR Part CFR Part49 – Federal Implementation Plan for Oil and Natural Gas 

Production Facilities , Production Facilities ,Fort Berthold Indian Reservation Fort Berthold Indian Reservation Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (Mandan,Hidatsa and Hidatsa and Hidatsa and 

Arikara Nations , Arikara Nations,or MHA Nation or MHA Nation or MHA Nation ),North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota . (as defined in § as defined in § as defined in § 49.152

Carl Daly Carl Daly to: dclark 08/02/2012 11:15 AM

Cc: jherman, dhanson, Deirdre Rothery, Kate Fay, Sara Laumann

This message is digitally signed.

Mr. Clark,

This email is to inform you that Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, has signed an interim final rule “Federal Implementation Plan for Oil and Natural Gas Federal Implementation Plan for Oil and Natural Gas Federal Implementation Plan for Oil and Natural Gas 

Production Facilities , Production Facilities ,Fort Berthold Indian Reservation Fort Berthold Indian Reservation Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (Mandan,Hidatsa and Arikara Nations Hidatsa and Arikara Nations Hidatsa and Arikara Nations ,or MHA 

Nation) Nation),North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota ,”(Fort Berthold Oil and Gas FIP)a federal rule that applies to oil and gas 

operations producing from the Bakken Pool on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota . 

The FIP requires owners and operators of oil and natural gas production facilities to reduce emissions of 

volatile organic compounds emanating from well completions , recompletions, and production and storage 

operations. The agency proposed a Reservation-specific FIP concurrently with this interim final rule .

Please find, attached, a copy of the notification sent by certified mail to the primary contact for Petro -Hunt:

Petro-Hunt_Actual Notice of FIP Letter 8-1-12.pdf

And a copy of the interim final rule:

Fort Berthold FIP NFR_8-1-12 (interim final rule) for ACTUAL NOTICE LETTERS.pdf

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me or Deirdre Rothery, Chief 

Air Permitting, Monitoring and Modeling Unit at rothery.deirdre@epa.gov or 303-312-6431.

Thank you,

Carl Daly, Director, Air Program

303-312-6416
#### Ronnie Hamel NICHOLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-300.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 16, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit      32-1**

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

| (1)   | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|      |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|-----------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| By:  |   | /s/                Dale                Vincent                               |
|      |   | Chief Executive Officer (principalexecutive and financial officer)                                                                                                                              |
|      |   | August                11, 2006                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|      |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |

----
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of LS Power Funding Corporation as of and for the nine
months ended September 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety be reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,451
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,452
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 337,291
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,269
<BONDS>                                        328,021
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           1
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   337,291
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,395
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,395
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Western Massachusetts Electric
Company (the registrant) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Cheryl
W. Grise, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant and John H. Forsgren,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the registrant,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the registrant.

/s/ Cheryl W. Grise
    (Signature)
    Cheryl W. Grise
    Chief Executive Officer

/s/ John H. Forsgren
    (Signature)
    John H. Forsgren
    Executive Vice President and
    Chief Financial Officer

March 12, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and
will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.23


                           [LETTERHEAD OF CALMAT CO]


                               December 15, 1996


Mr. R. Bruce Rieser
1527 Ridge Street
Redlands, CA 92373

Dear Bruce:

     The purpose of this letter is to amend the letter agreement dated January
20, 1995 ("Severance Agreement"), which provides for severance benefits in the
event of termination of your employment without cause.

     The third paragraph of Section XI of the Severance Agreement is hereby
amended to read in full as follows:

     "In the event that CalMat at any time chooses to exercise its right to
     terminate you without cause, you will be paid two years' base salary, less
     legally required deductions and withholdings, as severance pay. In
     addition, CalMat will waive payment of costs of continued health coverage
     under COBRA for two years. These will be the only payments to which you
     will be entitled in the event of termination without cause."

     As so amended, the Severance Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.

                                    Very truly yours,

                                    /s/ A. FREDERICK GERSTELL

                                    A. Frederick Gerstell


Agreed:


/s/ R. BRUCE RIESER
-------------------
R. Bruce Rieser
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-31233

____________

JAMES D TUFTS, II; ET AL.

Plaintiffs

JAMES D. TUFTS, II; J DAVID TUFTS, III

Plaintiffs-Appellants

versus

COUNCIL OF LLOYD’S; THE COMMITTEE OF LLOYD’S;

Intervenors-Appellees

THE WHITNEY NATIONAL BANK; NATIONAL

WESTMINISTER BANK PLC

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(92-CV-2645-C)

November 10, 1997

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

J. David Tufts, III and the Estate of James D. Tufts, II

(collectively “Tufts”) appeal from the district court’s dismissal

of their suit against the Whitney National Bank of New Orleans
(“Whitney”) and National Westminster Bank PLC (“NatWest”) and their

counter-claims against intervenors Council of Lloyd’s and Committee

of Lloyd’s (collectively “Lloyd’s”). 

In its order of March 31, 1995, the district court correctly

noted that as long as the forum selection clause agreed to by Tufts

and Lloyd’s remains valid, Tufts’ argument that Lloyd’s has waived

the clause by intervening in the instant case has no merit. See

M/S BREMEN v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 17-20, 92 S.Ct.

1907, 1917-1918, 32 L.Ed.2d 513 (1972) (holding that an otherwise

valid forum selection clause is not waived when one party finds it

necessary to intervene defensively in an action brought in

contravention of that clause). In addition, the district court

correctly found that res judicata bars the parties from relitigating the issue of the validity of the forum selection clause

after that issue was finally decided by Roby v. Corporation of

Lloyd’s, 824 F.Supp. 336 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), aff’d, 996 F.2d 1353 (2d

Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 945 (1993). See also Tufts v.

Corporation of Lloyd’s, No. 95-CIV-3480(JFK), 1996 WL 533639, at *7

(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 1996) (denying motion under FED. R. CIV. PROC.

60(b) for relief from the judgment in Roby, supra). Accordingly,

we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Tufts’ counter-claims

against Lloyd’s for substantially the same reasons set out by the

district court in its order of March 31, 1995.

As for Tufts’ original complaint against Whitney and NatWest,

that suit requested only that the court issue an injunction barring
either bank from honoring Lloyd’s threatened requests to draw down

on the letters of credit which Tufts claimed were fraudulently

obtained. In light of the fact that both banks already have

honored Lloyd’s request and drawn down the accounts, these claims

against Whitney and NatWest are now moot. See Rocky v. King, 900

F.2d 864, 866 (5th Cir. 1990) (“The mootness doctrine requires that

the controversy posed by the plaintiff’s complaint be ‘live’ not

only at the time the plaintiff files the complaint but also

throughout the litigation process.”).

AFFIRMED.