alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44043-44044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18707]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AC18-59-000]


Edison Electric Institute; Notice of Amendment Filing

    Take notice that on August 14, 2018, Edison Electric Institute 
filed an amendment to its March 19, 2018 filed request for approval for 
electric companies to use Account 439, recently authorized by the 
Financial Accounting Standards Board.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the

[[Page 44044]]

Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion 
to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must 
be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to 
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the 
Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for 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 Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2e4e7f0e1edcccecbccc7f1d7d2d2cdd0d6e2c4c7d0c18cc5cdd4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3d7b786f7e7253515453586e484d4d524f497d5b584f5e135a524b">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comments: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 28, 2018.

    Dated: August 23, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-18707 Filed 8-28-18; 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>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7521

BRIAN PARKS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. DONALD F. AMES, Superintendent , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Charleston

. Thomas E. Johnston, Chief District Judge. ( 2:20

- cv - 00691 )

Submitted : March 28, 2022 Decided: March 31, 2022

Before MOTZ and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Brian Parks , Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA , Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Brian Parks seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate o f appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisone r satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. M cDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Parks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Parks’ motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.7

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-38521, 333-38523, 333-38525, 333-38527,
333-38531, 333-38533, 333-38537, 333-38539, 333-48167, 333-61395, 333-65688 and
333-65704), Forms S-4 (No's. 333-61401 and 333-47926) and Form S-3
(No. 333-64979) of Security Capital Group Incorporated of our report dated 21
March 2002 relating to the financial statements of Security Capital (EU)
Management Holdings S.A., which is included in the Security Capital Group
Incorporated Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.

PricewaterhouseCoopers
London
11 April 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0112

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

MARK JAY PRICHARD,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Mark Jay Prichard, to all counsel of 

record, and to the Honorable Michael F. McMahon, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 3 2021

11/03/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0112
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as

Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Digital Realty Trust, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

Dated: December 21, 2012



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    MICHAEL F.
FOUST
|Michael F. Foust       
|Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Release 33-8238, dated June 5, 2003, this certification is being
furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4794

_____________________________

GEORGE WALKER IV,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appeal—Original Jurisdiction.

January 28, 2019

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits. 

MAKAR, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

George Walker IV, pro se, Petitioner.
2

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
#### Metz et al., Appellees, *v.*Betzner et al., Appellants, et al.

(No. 30695

Decided June 12, 1946.)

*Mr. Bert H. Long, Mr. Milton M. Bloom*and *Messrs. Cowell & Fletcher,*for appellees Arthur H. Metz and Grace Metz.

*Mr. Oliver G. Bailey*and *Mr. William M. Fridman,*for appellees Daisy M. Betzner, Daisy Idella Sweeney and Clifford H. Sweeney.

*Mr. Robert Adair Black*and *Mr. George A.*Dornette, for appellants.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Williams, Turner, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur:

Bell, J., not participating.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 The undersigned, Rachel Feldstein, Secretary and Director (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of Advanced Ventures  Corp.  (the “Company”), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: May 19, 2011
By:
/s/ Rachel FeldsteinName: Rachel FeldsteinTitle: Secretary and Director(Principal Internal  Accounting and financial Officer)
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection
with this Report on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2015, or the Report, of PennantPark Floating Rate Capital Ltd., or the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Aviv
Efrat, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

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

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



|               |  |                        
|-------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Aviv Efrat
|Name:          |  | Aviv Efrat             
|Title:         |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:          |  | August 6, 2015
FMC-2013.12.31 Ex. 10.4.a






Exhibit 10.4.a


FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED
FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 
INCENTIVE COMPENSATION AND STOCK PLAN


WHEREAS, FMC Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Amended and Restated FMC Technologies, Inc. Incentive Compensation and Stock Plan, as amended and restated in February, 2013 (the “Plan”);
WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company now deems it necessary and desirable to amend the Plan in certain respects; and
WHEREAS, this First Amendment shall supersede the provisions of the Plan to the extent those provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of the amendment;
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue and in exercise of the powers reserved to the Compensation Committee under Section 17 Amendment and Termination of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended in the following respects, effective October 3, 2013:


		
	1.
	Section 4.1 of the Plan is hereby amended to add the following new paragraph immediately after the 4th paragraph thereto:




Effective on and after October 3, 2013, the full number of shares for any exercised Stock Option or Stock Appreciation Rights will be deemed to have been delivered for purposes of determining the maximum number of shares of Common Stock available for delivery under the Plan regardless of whether any shares are not delivered due to such shares being used to either (a) satisfy payment of the option price or (b) satisfy applicable tax-withholding obligations.


		
	2.
	For purposes of clarifying the “cash out” provisions set forth in Section 9.7, Section 9.7 of the Plan is hereby amended to add the following sentence to the end thereto which shall read as follows:




Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, in no event shall the Committee elect to or permit a participant to reprice or cash out all or a portion of the participant’s outstanding Stock Option when the Fair Market Value of the Common Stock underlying the Stock Option is less than the exercise price per share of the Common Stock under the Stock Option.









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Compensation Committee, on behalf of the Company, has caused this amendment to be executed by its duly authorized representative this 3rd day of October, 2013.


FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 




By: /s/ Mark J. Scott                     


Its: Vice President, Administration
257 La. 988

#### John C. FUCHS, Jr. v. Edward LaBRUYERE, Finance Director of the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana.

No. 51183.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 10, 1971.

In re: Edward LaBruyere, Finance Director of the Parish of Jefferson applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 242 So.2d 349.

Writ refused. We find no error of law in the judgment complained of.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended March 31, 2019, or the Report, of PennantPark Floating Rate Capital Ltd., or the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur H. Penn, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

 

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

 

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

 

|                                                       |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                  |
| /s/ Arthur H. Penn                                    |
| Name:  Arthur H. Penn                       |
| Title:    Chief Executive Officer |
| Date:    May 8, 2019         |
Order entered September 2, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 13 - 01672 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 01720 - CR FRANCISCO JAVIER ESC OBAR, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Da llas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F13 - 59278 - M , F11 - 71776 - M



### O RDER Th e s e appeal s are REINSTATED

. We VACATE our order of July 30, 2014 requiring the trial court to m ake findings of fact regarding wh y appellant’s brief was not filed. Appellant’s August 28, 2014 motion to rescind abatement and to file his brief is GRANTED . Appellant’s brief received by the Clerk of the Court on August 28, 2014 is DEEMED timely filed on the date of this order. The supplemental clerk’s records containing the certif ications of the right to appeal and the amended notices of appeal have been filed. The State’s brief shall be due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3891 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3891

To waive certain time limitations with respect to awarding the Medal of 
                     Honor to Rudolph Salais Vela.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1994

  Mr. Tejeda introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To waive certain time limitations with respect to awarding the Medal of 
                     Honor to Rudolph Salais Vela.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding 
any time limitation contained in section 3744(b) of title 10, United 
States Code, the President may award, and present in the name of the 
Congress, the Medal of Honor to Rudolph Salais Vela of San Antonio, 
Texas, for conspicuous acts of valor performed by him while serving as 
a private first class in the United States Army during combat 
operations on Okinawa during June 1945.

                                 <all>
```
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 383

To amend the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 to eliminate the discretion

of the court in connection with the denial of certain Federal benefits

upon conviction of certain drug offenses.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. SOLOMON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 to eliminate

the discretion of the court in connection with the denial

of certain Federal benefits upon conviction of certain

drug offenses.

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

3 That section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988

4 is amended—

5 (1) in subsection (a)—

6 (A) by striking ‘‘at the discretion of the

7 court,’’ each place it appears;
2

•HR 383 IH

1 (B) by striking ‘‘any or’’ each place it

2 appears; and

3 (C) by striking ‘‘up to’’ each place it ap4 pears; and

5 (2) in subsection (b)—

6 (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ‘‘and

7 at the discretion of the court—’’ and all that

8 follows through clause (iv) of such paragraph,

9 and inserting ‘‘be ineligible for any Federal

10 benefits for one year;’’;

11 (B) in paragraph (1)(B)—

12 (i) by striking ‘‘up to’’; and

13 (ii) by striking ‘‘as determined by the

14 court’’; and

15 (C) by striking ‘‘The court shall continue’’

16 and all that follows through ‘‘under clause (i).’’.

Æ
<PAGE>


                                                                     Exhibit 5.1



                                               __________, 2000


Beacon Power Corporation
6D Gill Street
Woburn, MA 01801

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     We have examined the Registration Statement on Form S-1 (the
"Registration Statement") filed by Beacon Power Corporation (the "Company")
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof in connection
with the registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, of
________ shares of common stock, $0.01 par value (the "Common Stock").

     In connection with this opinion, we have examined the following
documents and records:

          (1)  The Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the
Company, as amended to date;

          (2)  The By-Laws of the Company, as amended to date;

          (3)  Specimen certificate of the Common Stock; and

          (4)  All corporate minutes and proceedings of the Company relating
to the issuance of the Common Stock being registered under the Registration
Statement.

     We have also examined such further documents, records and proceedings as
we have deemed pertinent in connection with the issuance of the Common Stock.
In our examination, we have assumed the genuineness of all signatures, the
legal capacity of natural persons, the completeness and authenticity of all
documents submitted to us as originals, and the conformity to the originals
of all documents submitted to us as certified, photostatic or conformed
copies, and the validity of all laws and regulations. We also are familiar
with the additional proceedings proposed to be taken by the Company in
connection with the authorization, registration, issuance and sale of the
Common Stock.

<PAGE>

     We are qualified to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
and we do not purport to express any opinion herein concerning any law other
than the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the federal law of the
United States.

     Based upon such examination, it is our opinion that the Common
Stock, when issued and paid for, will be legally issued, fully paid and
non-assessable.

     We consent to the use of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration
Statement and to the references to our firm in the Prospectus which is part
of the Registration Statement.


                                       Very truly yours,


                                       Edwards & Angell, LLP