alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17469-17470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7145]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings <greek-i>1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric 
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4355-002; ER11-4178-001; ER11-4179-001; ER11-
39-003.
    Applicants: Flat Water Wind Farm, LLC, Roth Rock Wind Farm, LLC, 
TPW Petersburg, LLC, Roth Rock North Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Clarification of TPW Petersburg, LLC, et al. of Notice 
of Non-Material Change in Status.
    Filed Date: 3/16/12.
    Accession Number: 20120316-5181.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1198-001.
    Applicants: Solano 3 Wind LLC.
    Description: Revised Application of Solano 3 Wind LLC For Order 
Accepting Market-Based Rate T to be effective 3/31/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/16/12.
    Accession Number: 20120316-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1202-001.
    Applicants: Liberty Hill Power LLC.
    Description: Liberty Hill Power LLC, FERC Electric Tariff to be 
effective 4/29/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/16/12.
    Accession Number: 20120316-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1241-001.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: PowerSouth NITSA Amendment (Add Hewett DP with McVay-
Scyrene Temporary DP) to be effective 3/16/2012.
    Filed Date: 3/16/12.
    Accession Number: 20120316-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1261-000.
    Applicants: Cleco Power LLC.
    Description: Supplemental filing to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 3/15/12.
    Accession Number: 20120315-5093.

[[Page 17470]]

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1274-000.
    Applicants: Lehigh Capital, LLC.
    Description: Lehigh Capital, LLC submits request for the 
cancellation of its status of market-based rate.
    Filed Date: 3/14/12.
    Accession Number: 20120316-0201.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 19, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7145 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Robert Lee BRYANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4-86-3158.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 16, 1987.

Robert Lee Bryant, pro se. appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Diane E. Leeds, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This was a proceeding under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 wherein the motion of Robert Lee Bryant was denied without an evidentiary hearing and without an attachment of those portions of the record showing conclusively that Bryant was entitled to no relief. Such procedure is allowable when the motion is legally insufficient on its face.

We are clearly persuaded from our perusal that Bryant’s motion was legally sufficient. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to either accord Bryant an evidentiary hearing or to attach to the order of denial such portions of the record as will conclusively show that Bryant is entitled to no relief.

REVERSED AND REMANDED with instructions.

DOWNEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Motion Granted and Order filed February 20, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00126-CV

____________

IN RE JULIE HANNAH, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

125th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-48071

ORDER

On February 11, 2014, relator Julie Hannah filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. 

P. 52. Relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Kyle Carter, presiding 

judge of the 125th District Court of Harris County, to set aside his orders dated 

January 14, 2014 entered in trial court cause number 2013-48071, styled Julie 

Hannah v. David Lee Hatcher, et al. Relator claims respondent abused his 
2

discretion by ordering the underlying proceeding transferred to the County Court at 

Law of Aransas County.

Relator also has filed a motion for a temporary stay of the underlying 

proceedings. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. On February 11, 2014, relator 

asked this Court to stay proceedings in the trial court pending a decision on the 

petition for writ of mandamus. Relator represents that her motion for a temporary 

stay is unopposed by the real parties in interest. 

It appears from the facts stated in the petition and motion that relator’s 

request for relief requires further consideration, and that judicial economy will best 

be served by a grant of temporary relief. We therefore GRANT relator’s motion 

and issue the following order:

We ORDER all proceedings in trial court cause number 2013-48071, Julie 

Hannah v. David Lee Hatcher, Robert Alan Hatcher, and Marjorie Cordes,

STAYED until a final decision by this Court on relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus, or until further order of this Court. This Court’s order precludes any 

enforcement of the trial court’s January 14, 2014 orders transferring the underlying 

proceeding to the County Court at Law of Aransas County, until such time as this 

Court’s order is lifted or modified. 

In addition, the Court requests Marjorie Cordes and David Lee Hatcher, the 

real parties in interest, to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or 

before March 7, 2014. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.4.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Busby, and Donovan.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                         346,574
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  251,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    218,976
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               847,460
<PP&E>                                       1,045,016
<DEPRECIATION>                               (534,380)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,505,656
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          342,064
<BONDS>                                         40,822
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,062
<COMMON>                                        13,230
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,105,478
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,505,656
<SALES>                                        847,191
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               847,191
<CGS>                                          575,423
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  575,423
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,287,442
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                30,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,958
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,051,632)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,051,632)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,051,632)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>
#### L.H. REYNOLDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 88-2475.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 23, 1988.

PARKER, Judge.

L.H. Reynolds appeals from the summary denial of a motion “for correction, modification, or clarification of sentence.” Reynolds’ motion is not to challenge or reduce the sentence, but seeks only to clarify the sentencing papers in order to insure that the prison authorities correctly interpret those documents. Because Reynolds fails to set forth adequate grounds for relief in his motion, we affirm.

In his motion, Reynolds alleges that he was sentenced to thirty (30) years incarceration. Thereafter, Reynolds alleges:

> 1. No sentencing guidelines scoresheet was prepared nor filed “to defendant’s knowledge”;

> 2. Various classification officers within the Department of Corrections disagree as to whether Reynolds’ sentence is intended to be an “old system” sentence or a “guidelines system sentence”.

First, we note that Reynolds’ motion lists circuit court case number 75-6539, indicating an offense occurring in 1975 or earlier. If that is correct, Reynolds would not be entitled to sentencing guidelines, unless at sentencing, which occurred on June 14, 1985, Reynolds affirmatively elected to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines. *See In re Rules of Criminal Procedure (Sentencing Guidelines),*439 So.2d 848 (Fla.1983). *See also Bexley v. State,*490 So.2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Reynolds does not allege that he made such a request. Secondly, Reynolds does not positively assert that no guidelines sheet was completed. Third, Reynolds does not challenge the length of his sentence.

Accordingly, Reynolds’ motion is denied. It appears his remedy for any denial of a clear legal right within the prison system based upon a confusion in his sentencing papers would be through a petition *1009for a writ of mandamus. *See Hall v. Key,*476 So.2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
49984.

#### CARNEY et al. v. THE STATE.

Quillian, Judge.

The defendants were indicted, tried and convicted for violation of the Georgia Drug Abuse Control Act, involving the possession of over 1 ounce of marijuana. Each of the defendants was sentenced to 18 months in the penitentiary and they appealed from the overruling of their motion for new trial. *Held:*

1. (a) The defendants were arrested while cultivating alleged growing marijuana plants in a field some distance from any known habitation. The marijuana plants were growing between rows of corn. The contentions made by the defendants with regard to their motion to suppress are controlled adversely to them by the recent ruling of *Patterson v. State,*133 Ga. App. 742.

(b) It is contended that the marijuana constituted part of the realty which was owned by the father of one of the defendants. Hence, it is urged that the defendants *817were not in possession of such marijuana plants. The illegal marijuana here was not part of the realty and thus could be considered in the possession of the defendants. See in this connection *Miller v. Jackson,*190 Ga. 668 (10 SE2d 35); Code Ann. Ch. 79A-9, especially Code Ann. § 79A-903 (5) (Ga. L. 1967, pp. 296, 344 as amended; 1970, pp. 470, 471). See also Code §§ 85-1901 and 85-1902.

Submitted January 9, 1975

Decided April 21, 1975

Rehearing denied May 14, 1975

2. There was sufficient evidence to convict the defendants for possession of marijuana. Such material was not insufficiently identified as proscribed marijuana as a matter of law.

3. Error is assigned to the overruling of the defendant’s motion to quash which attacked the composition of the grand jury and traverse jury because it was contended that to excuse women under "Ga. Code 59-112 (d)” would deprive the defendant of "due process of law.” In this court the defendant’s brief merely restated the motion to quash except that it was now contended that the jury selection was "in violation of the 6th Amendment of tbe U. S. Constitution and similar state constitutional provision.”

The brief also recites: "Furthermore, the § 59-112 (d) is unconstitutional on its face in that it grants women an exemption from jury duty but not men and thereby violating their rights to equal protection of the law.”

A mere recital in the brief of the existence of a ground of error without argument or citation of authority is insufficient to save it from being treated as abandoned. *Schmid v. State,*226 Ga. 70, 71 (172 SE2d 616). Where the objection urged below is not argued here it must be treated as abandoned and where an entirely different objection is presented in this court, we do not consider it since we are limited to those grounds urged in the trial court. *Wright v. Dilbeck,*122 Ga. App. 214 (12) (176 SE2d*715); Kingston v. State,*127 Ga. App. 660, 661 (194 SE2d 675); *Holiday Homes v. Bragg,*132 Ga. App. 594, 597 (208 SE2d 608).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pannell, P. J., and Clark, J., concur.*

*818
      *Al Horn,*for appellants.
#### James M. THIGPEN v. Alexandria Haney THIGPEN.

No. 89-CC-1564.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Thigpen, Alexandria Haney; — Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 88-3896; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 21140-CW.

Denied.
Exhibit
      31.1


**302(a)
      CERTIFICATIONS**




I,
      Cindy
      K. Swank, certify that:





1.
       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of APD Antiquities,
      Inc.;





2.
       Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;





3.
       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
      information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
      the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
      issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.
       The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are
      responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
      (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15) and internal control over
      financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
      for the small business issuer and we have:





a)
       designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
      information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
      during the period in which this report is being prepared;





b)
       evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure
      controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
      the
      effectiveness  of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation.





5.
       The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have
      disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer’s
      auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors
      (or persons performing the equivalent function):





a)
       all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
      operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
      likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal
      control over financial reporting.





Date:
      November 6, 2007





/s/
                Cindy K. SwankCindy
                K. Swank, PresidentChief
                Executive Officer,Chief
                Financial Officer
Exhibit
      3.5




CERTIFICATE
      OF AMENDMENT





OF
      ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF





OMNI
      U.S.A., INC.,





A
      Nevada
      Corporation





CHANGING
      THE NAME OF THE CORPORATION.





Omni
      U.S.A., Inc., a Nevada Corporation, under its corporate seal and the hand of its
      board
      of directors does hereby certify that a majority of its shareholders, effective
      as


of
      May
      10, 2006, via a written consent of the shareholders, adopted and passed the following
      resolution for the purpose of changing the name of the corporation, to
      which:





RESOLVED,
      that Article I of the Articles of Incorporation shall be amended as follows:





I.





The
      name
      of the corporation is BRENDAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.





That
      pursuant to the foregoing resolution and as required by NRS 78.390, via a written
      consent of shareholders, effective May 10, 2006, a majority of the shares
      entitled to
      vote,
      voted in favor of the above resolution.





That
      this
      Certificate of Amendment amending the Articles of Incorporation is hereby
      filed with the Secretary of State on May 16, 2006 or as soon thereafter as
      can
      be.




Dated:
              May 16, 2006
            OMNI
              U.S.A.
              Inc.By:
            /S/
              LOWELL W. GIFFHORNLowell
              W. GiffhornChief
              Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.1





 


AMENDMENT
NO. 2 TO


COLOR
STAR TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.


2019
EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


 


Color
Star Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Company”) previously approved and adopted the Amendment No. 1 to the 2019 Equity Incentive
Plan (the “Plan”) to encourage the Plan’s participants to acquire and hold shares in the Company as an added
incentive to remain with the Company and increase their efforts in promoting the interests of the Company, and to enable the Company
to attract and retain capable individuals. By this Amendment No.2, the Company desires to amend the Plan to increase the number
of shares available under the Plan.


 


1.
Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings assigned to such terms in the Plan.


 


2.
The effective date of this Amendment to the Plan shall be November 18, 2020, upon the shareholders’ approval.


 


3.
Section 5(b) of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:


 


5.
Grant of Awards; Shares Subject to this Plan; Limitations.


 


(b)
Subject to Section 3, Section 11 and Section 12 of this Plan, the Committee is authorized to deliver under this Plan an aggregate
of Six Million Five Hundred and Thirty Six Thousand (6,536,000) Ordinary Shares. Each Ordinary Share subject to an Option or a
Share Appreciation Right will reduce the number of Ordinary Shares available for issuance by one share, and each Ordinary Share
underlying an Award of Restricted Share, Restricted Share Units, Share Bonus Awards and Performance Compensation Awards will reduce
the number of Ordinary Shares available for issuance by one share.


 


4.
This Amendment No.2 shall amend only the provisions of the Plan as set forth herein. Those provisions of the Plan not expressly
amended hereby shall be considered in full force and effect.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment No. 2 to be executed by its duly authorized representative on this October
22, 2020.


 


	 	Color Star Technology Co., Ltd.
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Biao Lu
	 	Name: 	Biao Lu
	 	Title:	Chief Executive Officer
Order filed January 12, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

___________

NO. 01-13-00975-CR

____________

ANDREW J. SERRANO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Crim Ct at Law No 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1842255

ORDER
This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State’s Exhibit 4.

The exhibit clerk of the Co Crim Ct at Law No 4 is directed to deliver to the 

Clerk of this court the original of State’s Exhibit 4, on or before January 22, 2015.

The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original 

exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon 

completion of inspection, to return the original of State’s Exhibit 4, to the clerk of 

the Co Crim Ct at Law No 4.

PER CURIAM
## F IFTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D23-2 587 LT Case No. 2021

- DP

- 039

_____________________________ T.K.T., SR., F ATHER O F T.K.T., A C HILD , Appella nt,

v. D EPARTMENT OF C HILDREN A ND F AMILIES , Appellee
.

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County. Daniel B. Merritt, Sr., Judge. Amanda Peterson, of Law Offices Of Peterson, P.A., Mulberry, for Appellant. Rachel Batten, of Children’s Legal Services, Brooksville, for Appellee. Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Amanda Victoria Glass, Senior Attorney, of Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, and Khairiya C. Bryant, of KCB Law, PLLC, Orlando, for Guardian ad Litem. December 8, 2 023 P ER C URIAM .2 A FFIRMED . J AY , H ARRIS , and S OUD , JJ., concur.

________ _____________________ Not fin al until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________