alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37525-37526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16464]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-392]


Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Anderson Brecon, 
Inc.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and 
applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the

[[Page 37526]]

issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 31, 2018. 
Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the 
application on or before August 31, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for 
hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: 
Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All 
request for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, 
Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Attorney General has delegated his 
authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of 
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority 
to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation 
and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of 
manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of 
controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with 
suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated 
to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division 
(``Assistant Administrator'') pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, 
appendix to subpart R.
    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on 
February 6, 2018, Anderson Brecon, Inc., 4545 Assembly Drive, Rockford, 
Illinois 61109 applied to be registered as an importer of 
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370), a basic class of controlled substance 
listed in Schedule I.
    The company plans to import for clinical trial only. Approval of 
applications will occur only when registrant's business activity is 
consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C 952 (a) (2). 
Authorization will not extend to the import of FDA approved or non-
approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.

    Dated: July 20, 2018.
 John J. Martin,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-16464 Filed 7-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
**Exhibit 32.1.2**

 

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

 

I, Robert Hoglund, the Chief Financial Officer of Consolidated Edison, Inc. (the“Company”) certify that the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, which this statement accompanies, (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Dated: February 23, 2009
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 11.1


                       IRIDIUM WORLD COMMUNICATIONS LTD.

                 COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER CLASS A COMMON SHARES
                        (In Thousands Except Share Data)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,        SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
                                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        1997             1998             1997             1998
                                                                     ----------      -----------       -----------     -----------
<S>                                                                  <C>             <C>               <C>             <C>
NET LOSS APPLICABLE TO CLASS A COMMON SHARES:

Net loss                                                             $      779      $    20,933       $       779     $    38,359
                                                                     ----------      -----------       -----------     -----------

Net loss applicable to Class A Common shares                         $      779      $    20,933       $       779     $    38,359
                                                                     ==========      ===========       ===========     ===========

AVERAGE NUMBER OF CLASS A SHARES:

Average number of Class A Common shares outstanding                   2,769,231       12,058,897        1,392,265       12,033,944

Diluted adjustments (2):
     Assumed exercise of options, warrants
     and conversion of Class B Common Shares                                  -        2,763,655                -        2,570,405
                                                                     ----------      -----------        ----------     -----------

Average number of Class A Common shares assumed to be
     outstanding, assuming dilution                                   2,769,231       14,822,552        1,392,265       14,604,349
                                                                     ==========      ===========       ===========     ===========

NET LOSS PER CLASS A COMMON SHARE:

Basic (1)                                                            $     0.28      $      1.74       $     0.56      $      3.19

Diluted (2)                                                          $     0.28      $      1.41       $     0.56      $      2.63
</TABLE>



(1)  The assumed exercise of options and warrants in periods of net loss are
     anti-dilutive and are not included in the computation and presentation
     of loss per Class A Common share.

(2)  The assumed exercise of options and warrants are anti-dilutive but are
     included in the calculation of diluted loss per Class A Common share in
     accordance with Regulation S-K, Item 601 (a) (11).




                                       44
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  Fourth Quarter 1996 and 1995

Area
                                      Fourth     Fourth   Standard    Standard
                                     quarter    quarter   error on    error on
                                        1996       1995  1996 rate  difference

United States.....................      65.4       65.1        0.2         0.2

  Inside MAs......................      63.3       62.9        0.2         0.3
   In central cities..............      49.4       49.3        0.3         0.5
   Not in central cities (suburbs)      72.1       71.7        0.2         0.3
  Outside MAs.....................      74.2       73.9        0.4         0.5

 Northeast........................      62.3       61.6        0.4         0.6
 Midwest..........................      70.8       70.1        0.4         0.5
 South............................      67.6       67.5        0.3         0.4
 West.............................      58.9       59.0        0.4         0.6
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED J.S., MOTHER of M.S., E.D., J.D., CHILDREN , Appellant ,

v. Case No. 5D 16

- 4267 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES , Appellee

. ________________________________/ Opinion filed March 7, 2017 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Vo lusia County , Kathryn D. Weston , Judge. Sherry C ote

- Jarvis, of Cote

- Jarvis & Associates, P.A., Edgewater, for Appellant. Ward L. Metzger, Appellate Counsel, Department of Childr e n and Families, Jacksonville, for Appellee. David Paul Krupski, Appellate Counsel, Guardian ad Litem, Sanford , for Guardian ad Litem Program

. COHEN, C.J. J.S. appeals the order terminatin g her parental rights to three children, M.S., E.D. , and J.D. , who at the time of trial ranged from five to ten years old . The s ol e ground for
termination of parental rights was J.S.’s failure to substantially comply with the case plan.2 The children were initially removed from the home because of ongoing domestic violence involving J.S. and her boyfriend. During the course of the original court

- ordered

cas e plan, the mother tested positive for a controlled substance. As a result, four months before the termination of parental rights trial, the case plan was modified to require random drug te sts and substance abuse counsel ing. In its final order, the trial court terminated J. S .’s parental rights pursuant to section 39.806(1) (e) 1., Florida Statutes (2016), f inding that J. S . failed to substantially c omply with
th e modified case plan. We have reviewed the trial transcript and accept the Department ’ s concession that the evidence at the termination of parental rights trial was not legally sufficient to support the trial court’s finding. Accordingly, we reverse the order terminating J.S.’s parental rights and remand for further proceedings

. REVERSED and REMANDED

. EVANDER and EDWARDS , JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1487 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1487

To limit the availability of tax credits and reductions in cost-sharing 
under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to individuals who 
receive health insurance coverage pursuant to the provisions of a Taft-
                             Hartley plan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 9, 2013

  Mr. Thune (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Alexander, Mr. 
   Rubio, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Scott, and Mr. McConnell) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To limit the availability of tax credits and reductions in cost-sharing 
under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to individuals who 
receive health insurance coverage pursuant to the provisions of a Taft-
                             Hartley plan.

    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 ``Union Bailout Prevention Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON SUBSIDIES FOR INDIVIDUALS IN TAFT-HARTLEY PLANS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
premium tax credits shall be permitted under section 36B of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and no reductions in cost-sharing shall 
be permitted under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18071) with respect to an individual for 
health insurance coverage provided pursuant to the terms of a 
collective bargaining agreement involving one or more employers.
    (b) Qualified Plans.--Section 1301(a) of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18021(a)) is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
            ``(5) Taft-hartley plans.--The term `qualified health plan' 
        shall not include health insurance coverage provided pursuant 
        to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement involving one 
        or more employers.''.
                                 <all>
```
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1838 

To amend the National Historic Preservation Act to make Hispanic-serving 

institutions eligible for technical and financial assistance for the establishment of preservation training and degree programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 17, 2013 

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. MENENDEZ, and Mr. 

HEINRICH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the National Historic Preservation Act to make 

Hispanic-serving institutions eligible for technical and 

financial assistance for the establishment of preservation 

training and degree programs. 

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 ‘‘National Historic Pres5 ervation Act Amendment Act of 2013’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1838 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS 

2 FOR ASSISTANCE FOR PRESERVATION EDU3 CATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS. 

4 Section 101(j)(2)(C) of the National Historic Preser5 vation Act (16 U.S.C. 470a(j)(2)(C)) is amended by in6 serting ‘‘to Hispanic-serving institutions (as defined in 

7 section 502(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

8 U.S.C. 1101a(a))),’’ after ‘‘universities,’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Stephen F. Brown,



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

November 21, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00635

- CV

STATE OF TEXAS ON BEHALF OF THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR

BEXAR COUNTY , Jonathan Watkins, and Thomas Velez, all in their official capacities,

Appellant s

v.

Stephen F. BROWN , Jr,

Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Tri al Court No. 2014

- CI

- 05810

Honorable Solomon Casseb, III, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellants’ motion for extension of time to file a brief is granted in part. We order

appellant’s brief due December 24, 2014.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 21st day of November, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk o f Court
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Albert MURPHY.

No. 61532.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1978.

In re: Albert Murphy applying for writs of review. St. Mary Parish.

Writ denied. Insufficient showing to exercise our supervisory jurisdiction.

CALOGERO, TATE, DIXON and DENNIS, JJ.,

concurring, are of the opinion that there is no probable cause showing of simple burglary. *State v. Alexander,*La., 353 So.2d 716.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:**

__2012

________ - NM -

___ 0 8 2

______ - AD **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant ? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
S. 1614 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To require Certificates of Citizenship and other Federal documents to reflect name 

and date of birth determinations made by a State court and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Accuracy for Adoptees Act’’. 

SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF STATE COURT DETERMINATIONS OF NAME 

AND BIRTH DATE. 

Section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

1431) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(c) A Certificate of Citizenship or other Federal document 

issued or requested to be amended under this section shall reflect 

the child’s name and date of birth as indicated on a State court 

order, birth certificate, certificate of foreign birth, certificate of 

birth abroad, or similar State vital records document issued by 

the child’s State of residence in the United States after the child 

has been adopted or readopted in that State.’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Jessie Lee BRITT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-987.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 28, 1968.

Jesse Lee Britt, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Baker v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 59 (opinion filed this date).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7750

BRUCE A. SETTERBERG; EUGENIO DUQUESNE; WILLIAM

A. KINSLER; CHARLES ARTHUR BENNETT,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

RICKY A. PIERCE; JAMES D. HABURN, SR.,

Plaintiffs,

versus

JIM HUNT, Governor; NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL

ASSEMBLY; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; NORTH CAROLINA PAROLE COMMISSION;

NORTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION; W. EARL BRITT;

MALCOLM J. HOWARD; TERRENCE W. BOYLE; W. K.

JONES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge. (CA-95-505-5-F)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce A. Setterberg, Eugenio Duquesne, William A. Kinsler, Charles

Arthur Bennett, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellants noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal

period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an

extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day

period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and are not entitled to

relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established

by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v.

Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting

United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district

court entered its order on September 8, 1995; Appellants' notice of

appeal was filed on October 31, 1995. Appellants' failure to note

a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period

deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We

therefore dismiss the appeal. In light of the disposition of this

appeal, we deny Appellants' motions to file an amended complaint,

for discovery, to appoint counsel, for setting pretrial release

conditions, application for writs of appearance, motion for relief

from judgment, and request for service. 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
#### Dorothy Ray McKINNEY, Appellant, v. UNITED PETROLEUM, INC., a corporation, Appellee.

No. 74-306.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 17, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 25, 2010 

p0517 

Order 

 

May 25, 2010 

140632 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140632 

 COA: 295670 

Washtenaw CC: 09-001267-FC 

LUIS ERNESTO PALENCIA-SANCHEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 28, 2010 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 23.3



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ENGINEERS



We hereby consent to the references to our firm and to its having reviewed the report of Consolidated Natural Gas
Companys staff engineers with regard to Consolidated Natural Gas Companys estimated proved reserves of gas and oil at December 31, 2003 appearing in Consolidated Natural Gas Companys Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003
and in all current and future registration statements of Consolidated Natural Gas Company that incorporate by reference such Form 10-K.



We further wish to advise that we are not employed on a contingent basis and that at the time of the preparation of our report, as well as at present,
neither Ryder Scott Company, nor any of its employees had, or now has, a substantial interest in Consolidated Natural Gas Company, or any of its subsidiaries, as a holder of its securities, promoter, underwriter, voting trustee, director, officer,
or employee.



/s/    Ryder Scott Company, L.P.RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.




Houston, Texas

February 20, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          63,751
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 622,752
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        538,982
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,994
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   622,752
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,548
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   240
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,774
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    534
<INCOME-TAX>                                       220
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                314
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       314
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>