alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 13318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5337]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 14298-000, 14299-000, 14301-000]


SV Hydro, LLC, Coffeeville, LLC, FFP Project 99, LLC; Notice 
Announcing Filing Priority for Preliminary Permit Applications

    On February 28, 2012, the Commission held a drawing to determine 
priority between three competing preliminary permit applications with 
identical filing times. In the event that the Commission concludes that 
none of the applicants' plans are better adapted than the other to 
develop, conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water 
resources of the region at issue, the priority established by this 
drawing will serve as the tiebreaker. Based on the drawing, the order 
of priority is as follows:
    1. FFP Project 99, LLC: Project No. 14301-000.
    2. SV Hydro, LLC: Project No. 14298-000.
    3. Coffeeville, LLC: Project No. 14299-000.

    Dated: February 29, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-5337 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# C_2007011EN.01000301.xml

| 17.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4373 — OTTO/Cdiscount/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 11/04)

On 7 November 2006, 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:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32006M4373. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4373. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
# L_2006118EN.01000401.xml

| 3.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 118/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 118/4

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 677/2006

of 2 May 2006

determining the allocation of export licences for certain milk products to be exported to the Dominican Republic under the quota referred to in Article 20a of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 of 26 January 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 as regards export licences and export refunds in the case of milk and milk products (2), and in particular Article 20a(11) thereof,

Whereas:

Article 20a of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 determines the procedure for allocating export licences for certain milk products to be exported to the Dominican Republic under a quota opened for that country. Applications submitted for the 2006/2007 quota year cover quantities greater than those available. As a result, allocation coefficients should be set for the quantities applied for,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities covered by export licence applications for the products referred to in Article 20a(3) of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999 submitted for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 shall be multiplied by the following allocation coefficients:

| — | 0,621034 for applications submitted for the part of the quota referred to in Article 20a(4)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999, |
| --- | --- |

—

0,621034 for applications submitted for the part of the quota referred to in Article 20a(4)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999,

| — | 0,063817 for applications submitted for the part of the quota referred to in Article 20a(4)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999. |
| --- | --- |

—

0,063817 for applications submitted for the part of the quota referred to in Article 20a(4)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 174/1999.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 3 May 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 May 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 20, 27.1.1999, p. 8. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 508/2006 (OJ L 92, 30.3.2006, p. 10).

2

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, 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 June 25, 2012

d0618 

# Order

June 25, 2012

144683

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144683

COA: 301614

Saginaw CC: 08

- 031729

- FH

CHRISTOPHER JAMES PFEIFFER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 10, 2012

judgment 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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stacey Graham, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Roberts, J.), rendered on October 28, 1988, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and sentencing defendant as a predicate felon to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Ross and Kassal, JJ.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1882 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain ethylene-vinyl acetate 

copolymers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26, 2009 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain 

ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN ETHYLENE-VINYL ACETATE COPOLY4 MERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.55 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers) is amended by striking 

8 ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and by inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1882 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
#### Samuel Charles YOUNGS, Petitioner, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent.

No. 83SC117.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Oct. 15, 1985.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 4, 1985.

David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Terri L. Brake, Deputy State Public Defender, Claire Levy, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for petitioner.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Joel W. Cantrick, Sol. Gen., Nathan B. Coats, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This case has been heard and reviewed by the court. Chief Justice Quinn, Justice Erickson, and Justice Rovira favor affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Appeals. *People v. Youngs,*665 P.2d 143 (Colo.App.1988). Justice Dubofsky, Justice Lohr, and Justice Neighbors are in favor of reversal. Justice Kirshbaum delivered the opinion of the Court of Appeals and did not participate.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed by operation of law because of an equally divided court. C.A.R. 35(e).

KIRSHBAUM, J., not participating.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Russo, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered August 26, 1988, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence under Indictment No. 6156/87, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court (Maraño, J.), also rendered August 26, 1988, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that the defendant had violated a condition thereof, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under Indictment No. 8749/86.

Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.

On June 17, 1987, the complainant went to the Maple Lanes *577bowling alley in Brooklyn to speak to the defendant concerning a report made to the complainant by the complainant’s son that the defendant, who had previously assaulted the son, planned to beat the son up again. The complainant was himself assaulted by the defendant and his brother, the codefendant Michael Russo, as he was waiting in the bowling alley parking lot. The codefendant punched the complainant twice in the back of his head and the defendant struck the complainant twice with a car jack, once in the head and second time on his left arm.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting testimony concerning his alleged prior assault on the complainant’s son. We disagree. It is well established that testimony which is necessary for the jury to understand the sequence of events is admissible to complete a narrative of the episode *(see, People v Gines,*36 NY2d 932; *People v Santiago,*158 AD2d 629). The challenged evidence was clearly admissible as background material *(see, People v Escobar,*131 AD2d 500). In any event, even if there was error in the admission of this testimony, the court’s prompt instructions avoided any potential for prejudice *(see, People v Gibbs,*59 NY2d 930, 932; *People v Santiago, supra).*

Furthermore, we find no error in the court’s interested witness charge. The court gave the standard instruction that the jury could consider whether any witness had an interest in the outcome of the case which might affect his or her testimony and that merely because a witness was interested did not mean that he or she was not telling the truth *(see, People v Agosto,*73 NY2d 963). The court properly instructed the jury that the question of a witness’s interest was a question of fact for its determination *(see, People v Reyes,*118 AD2d 666). The court did not err in refusing to charge that the complainant was interested as a matter of law *(see, People v Luberoff,*150 AD2d 802).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
#### Calvin L. Wilbourne, Respondent, v Lorraine Wilbourne, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Baer, Jr., J.), entered on or about April 25, 1990, which granted a divorce to plaintiff husband upon the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment by defendant wife, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action for divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 170 (1), plaintiff’s testimony at trial reveals a pattern of quarrel-ling, initiated by defendant, which led to physical altercations, including the throwing of plates, fruits and other objects, scratching and hair pulling. These disputes escalated to a point where they were occurring on a nightly basis, causing plaintiff to become depressed. The parties’ daughter testified that the situation had become a living "hell”, and that her father had become an emotional "wreck”, which condition did not abate until several months after plaintiff moved out of the marital residence. In addition, according to plaintiff’s testimony, which the trial court chose to credit, and which was corroborated, in part, by the testimony of the parties’ daughter, defendant repeatedly accused plaintiff of infidelity. These accusations were repeated at least once to the parties’ daughter, and on another occasion to a partner of the architectural firm with which plaintiff was associated. We agree with the findings of the trial court that defendant failed to demonstrate that her suspicions or accusations were justified, or had a reasonable basis, especially with respect to the period in question subsequent to 1980.

Based upon these repeated accusations of infidelity, which in this case so undermined the marital relationship as to make continued cohabitation improper *(see, Cinquemani v Cinquemani,*42 AD2d 851), and in light of the constant fighting between the parties which went well beyond any mere incompatibility or strained relations *(cf., Brady v Brady,*64 NY2d 339), the trial court did not abuse its broad discre*290tion in granting a divorce to plaintiff upon the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment *(Hessen v Hessen,*33 NY2d 406). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Ross and Asch, JJ.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1984 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain used fuel pumps 

used in remanufacture. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 28, 2009 

Mr. WICKER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain used 

fuel pumps used in remanufacture. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN USED FUEL PUMPS USED IN REMANU4 FACTURE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.25.30 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 certain used fuel pumps used in remanufacture) is amend8 ed by striking the date in the effective period column and 

9 inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1984 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF LSP-WHITEWATER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AS OF
AND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           7,749
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,178
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,793
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,402
<PP&E>                                           8,393
<DEPRECIATION>                                     112
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 308,115
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,556
<BONDS>                                        177,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     119,559
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   308,115
<SALES>                                         13,348
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,348
<CGS>                                            7,747
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,747
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,024
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 99,002
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             99,002
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    99,002
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32****Residential Capital Corporation****Certification of Principal Executive Officer and PrincipalFinancial Officer****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**In connection with the Quarterly Report of Residential CapitalCorporation (the Company) onForm 10-Q for theperiod ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each ofthe undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-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 results of    operations of the Company./s/ Bruce J. Paradis Bruce J. ParadisChief Executive OfficerAugust 7, 2006/s/ Davee L. Olson Davee L. OlsonChief Financial OfficerAugust 7, 2006
Exhibit 32.2






Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,




18 U.S.C. § 1350






I, Louis J. Brothers, Chief Financial Officer of Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc. (the “Corporation”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to my knowledge that:




1.  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the quarter ended September 30, 2012 (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 Corporation.






Date: November 14, 2012


By:
/s/ Louis J. BrothersLouis J. BrothersPresident, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, andChairman of the Board









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 Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The information contained in this Exhibit 32.2 is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Steve J. Cannon, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DynCorp International LLC;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,
and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly
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 and its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures
as of the period covered by this quarterly report, based on such evaluation; and

c. disclosed in this quarterly report
any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.

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/    STEVE J.
CANNONSteve J. CannonPresident and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)February 23, 2006