alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7506]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1308-000]


Palouse Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based 
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Palouse Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with 
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is April 11, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site 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#15535047565a7b797c7b70466065657a676155737067763b727a63"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f8bebdaabbb7969491969dab8d8888978a8cb89e9d8a9bd69f978e">[email protected]</span></a> or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 22, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7506 Filed 3-28-12; 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>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Frank C. COLLATT.

No. 85-K-2259.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 1, 1986.

In re Collatt, Frank C.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CR 85-146; Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “J”, No. 23-359.

Prior report: La.App., 477 So.2d 177.

Granted. Consolidate with 85-K-2304.
#### FIRST GUARANTY BANK OF HAMMOND v. ATTORNEYS’ LIABILITY ASSURANCE SOCIETY, LTD. and Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre.

No. 87-C-1049.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re First Guaranty Bank of Hammond; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-6795; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “E”, No. 861216.

Prior report: La.App., 506 So.2d 595.

Granted.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of QC Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Don Early, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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

Dated: May 9, 2007



/s/ Don EarlyDon EarlyChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer




Page 31
Exhibit 10.1


 


CONSULTING AGREEMENT SECOND AMENDED ADDENDUM


 


 


This
Consulting Agreement Second Amended Addendum is entered into effective as of December 18,
2004, and is a supplement to, and modification of, that certain Consulting
Agreement (the “Original Agreement”) by and between F.Y.I. Incorporated (n/k/a SOURCECORP, Incorporated) (the “Company”) and David
Lowenstein (“Consultant”), dated as of January 1, 2000.


 


1.             Fee Modification. 
Effective December 18, 2004, in addition to the fees contemplated
by Section 2 of the Original Agreement, Consultant’s hourly rate of
$140.00 shall be increased to $180.00 per hour for services Consultant performs
at the request of, and on behalf of, the Company, subject to the aggregate
compensation limitation under the Original Agreement of $250,000 for any
calendar year.  The proviso of
Section 1 (which relates to activities not subject to an hourly rate) of
that certain Consulting Agreement Addendum dated as of March 6, 2003 shall
remain in effect.


 


2.             Governing Laws.  This Second
Amended Addendum shall in all respect be construed according to the laws of the
State of Texas.


 


3.             Counterparts.  This Second
Amended Addendum may be executed simultaneously in two (2) or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which
together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.


 


4.             Effect of Second Amended
Addendum.  Except as specifically amended by this Second
Amended Addendum, all provisions of the Original Agreement (as amended by the
Consulting Agreement Amended Addendum entered into effective as of October 1,
2004) remain in full force and effect in accordance with their express terms.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amended Addendum
as of the day and year first above written.


 


	
  SOURCECORP, Incorporated

  	
  CONSULTANT

  
	
  (f/k/a
  F.Y.I. Incorporated)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Thomas C. Walker

  	
   

  	
  /s/ David Lowenstein

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Thomas
  C. Walker

  	
  David
  Lowenstein

  
	
   

  	
  Chairman
  and Chief Development Officer
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

      In connection with the quarterly report of IFSA Strongman, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jaime
Alvarez, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



Date:  May 15, 2006                          By: /s/ Jaime Alvarez
                                                ------------------
                                             Jaime Alvarez
                                             Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             647
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   647
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     647
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            20375
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        158240
<OTHER-SE>                                    (177968)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       647
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              12704084
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8090752
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3154720
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               81085
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1372517)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1372517)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (2040905)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (668388)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.042)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.042)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,498,022
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,498,022
<PP&E>                                       3,478,418
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,976,440
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          250,079
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,726,361
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,976,440
<SALES>                                        257,979
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               336,516
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               116,139
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                220,377
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            220,377
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   220,377
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    18.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    18.29
        

</TABLE>
50523.

#### REDI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. CRABBE PAVERS, INC.

Quillian, Judge.

Crabbe Pavers, Inc., a Cobb County corporation, brought suit in Cobb County State Court against the Redi Development Company, a DeKalb County corporation, on a contract claiming a balance due on the basis of quantum meruit. Defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to CPA § 12 (b) (Code Ann. § 81A-112 (b); Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 622; 1967, pp. 226, 231; 1968, pp. 1104, 1106; 1972, pp. 689, 692,693), alleging it did not engage in a regular course of business in Cobb County and its registered agent for service of process was in DeKalb County and not subject to the jurisdiction of the Cobb County court. The motion was denied. Defendant appeals. *Held:*

The principal place of business of a domestic corporation, as fixed by its charter, is its legal residence and the only place it can be sued in the absence of special *statutory provisions. Ace Waterproofing Co. v. Tremco Mfg. Co.,*116 Ga. App. 226 (156 SE2d 398). Georgia Business Corporation Code § 22-5301 (Code Ann. § 22-5301; Ga. L. 1968, pp. 565, 820) formerly Code § 22-1102, provides, in pertinent part, that "Any corporation chartered by authority of this State may be sued on contracts in that county in which the contract sought to be enforced was made or is to be performed, *if it has an office and transacts business there.”*(Emphasis supplied.) At the hearing on the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, both parties stipulated that the contract was made and performed in Cobb County and that defendant "had a superintendent to supervise and direct the development of the subdivision in Cobb County.” The

*660Argued April 8, 1975

Decided April 28, 1975.

*Gerstein, Carter & Chesnut, James C. Watkins,*for appellant.

*Fredericks, Jones & Wilbur, Jimmy W. Jones,*for appellee.

trial court relied upon *General Reduction Co. v. Tharpe,*11 Ga. App. 334 (75 SE 339) in denying defendant’s motion. We find *Tharpe*distinguishable from the instant case, for there the corporation "maintained a plant, together with a superintendent ... a large force of laborers, and a place for the transaction of such business as was necessary to the operation of the plant.” In the case before us, only a superintendent of the defendant corporation was located in Cobb County. The fact that the defendant corporation had an agent in Cobb County is insufficient to confer jurisdiction. *Padrick v. Kiser Co.,*33 Ga. App. 15 (124 SE 901); see also *Swift & Co. v. Lawson,*95 Ga. App. 35, 43 (97 SE2d 168).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Pannell, P. J., and Clark, J., concur.*
50433.

#### ROSE, SILVERMAN & HUNT v. BEN O’CALLAGHAN COMPANY.

Webb, Judge.

Ben O’Callaghan Company brought suit on a promissory note in the Civil Court of Fulton County against Security Development & Investment Company.1 Pursuant to Code Ann. § 46-101, entitling plaintiff to the process of garnishment where suit is pending, O’Callaghan filed in conjunction with its pending suit an affidavit and bond for garnishment which was served upon Rose, Silverman & Hunt, a law partnership. Pursuant to Code Ann. § 46-102, O’Callaghan’s affidavit was made before the deputy clerk of the Fulton Civil Court and recited that "Security Development & Investment Company, defendant, is indebted to said plaintiff in the sum of $36,500.00 principal, $1,370.00 interest, $5,680.50 attorney’s fees, and $19.50 court cost and that said plaintiff has a suit pending in suit no. 310883 at the-Term, 1970 of the Civil Court of Fulton County, and that affiant has reason to apprehend the loss of said sum or some part thereof unless process of garnishment issues.”

*649Argued March 4, 1975

Decided April 11, 1975

Rehearing denied April 28, 1975.

*Rose & Stern, George S. Stern, Benjamin Landey, for*appellant.

*Lipshutz, Macey, Zusmann & Sikes, Winston H. Morriss,*for appellee.

Rose, Silverman & Hunt, garnishee, answered that it was not indebted to Security Development and had none of its property or effects. O’Callaghan traversed this answer, and subsequently both O’Callaghan and the garnishee moved for summary judgment. O’Callaghan’s motion was granted and garnishee’s motion was denied, and garnishee appeals from both judgments with a certificate for immediate review. *Held:*

Some two months after the judgments complained of were entered, the United States Supreme Court, in reversing *North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc.,*231 Ga. 260 (201 SE2d 321), struck down as unconstitutional the pre-judgment garnishment statutes and procedures utilized here. North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 43 U. S. L. Week 4192 (U. S. Jan. 22, 1975), conformed to *North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc.,*supra. We must therefore hold this garnishment proceeding, which was instituted prior to final judgment in the main action, void and of no effect, and we reverse both judgments with direction that final judgment be entered in favor of the garnishee, Rose, Silverman & Hunt.

*Judgments reversed with direction.*

*Bell, C. J., and Marshall, J., concur.*

1

 This proceeding has been before us twice before. *Security Development &c. Co. v.Ben O’Callaghan Co.,*125 Ga. App. 526 (188 SE2d 238); *Ben O’Callaghan Co. v. Rose, Silverman & Hunt,*131 Ga. App. 29 (205 SE2d 45).
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA Y 15, 2014

NO. 03

- 14

- 00237

- CV

George Alejos, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas and VIA Metropolitan Transit Advanced Transportation District, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM 126TH DISTRI CT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON A ND ROSE

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED AS MOOT IN PART

--

OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the order signed by the district court on April 15 , 2014 setting bond and

the order of dismissal signed by the district court on April 28, 2014

. Having reviewed the record

and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no revers ible error in the district

court’s April 15 order and that the appeal of the April 28 order is moot . Therefore, the C ourt

affirms the district court’s April 15

, 2014 order and dismisses as moot the appeal of the district

court’s April 28, 2014 order

. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this

Court and the court below.
----

 

Exhibit 32

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United StatesCode), each of the undersigned officers of Newport Gold, Inc., a Nevadacorporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, [to such officer's knowledge],that:

The Form 10-QSB for the six-month period ended June 30, 2006****(the "Form *10-QSB*") of the Company fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and the information contained in the Form *10-QSB* fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

**Dated: August 14, 2006/s/ Derek Bartlett                                              Derek Bartlett, Chief Executive  Officer  
 Dated: August 14, 2006/s/ John Arnold                                                 John Arnold, Chief Financial  Officer
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

**
Aug. 13, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11842 ProFly Drones DJI S1000

This is a request for an amendment to Exemption No. 11842 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–

1148, granted to ProFly Drones. This amendment will provide for the addition of the DJI S1000

multirotor sUAS aircraft to the inventory of approved aircraft for use during VLOS operations 

currently covered under Exemption 11842. 

These airframes are commercially available to the general public, as are all components used to 

complete them. In addition, all configurations of these components follow standard, wellestablished practices. No aspect of these aircraft is proprietary to ProFly Drones in design or 

manufacture. 

DJI Innovations Model S1000 N570CT

S1000 Operation manual:

http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/s1000

_plus/en/S1000_Plus_release_note_en.pdf
District of
Division NO.
Court No. 31-280016
Estate No. 31-280016


                  CERTIFICATE OF FULL PERFORMANCE OF PROPOSAL

                        IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF
                        FILM OPTICALS OF CANADA LIMITED

The Undersigned, Beallor & Partners  Inc., the Trustee acting in the proposal of
FILM OPTICALS OF CANADA LIMITED, certifies that the  proposal, as filed with the
official receiver on the 24th day of  January 1994 and as amended for the second
time on the 24th  day of September 1999 has been fully performed  as of the 25th
day of April 2000.

Dated at Toronto this 25th day of April, 2000.


BEALLOR & PARTNERS INC.,
TURSTEE FOR THE EXTATE OF
FILM OPTICALS OF CANADA LTD.,



By/S/ E.C. White
---------------------
E.C. WHITE, C.A., CIP
Trustee
#### Kyle MONTGOMERY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-1887.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 8, 1988.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Karen M. Gottlieb and N. Joseph Du*299rant, Jr., Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Julie S. Thornton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HENDRY and NESBITT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a judgment and sentence beyond the guidelines entered upon a revocation of probation, we find no error in the finding that Montgomery was in violation of his probation. The order revoking probation and resulting conviction are therefore affirmed. The departure sentence, however, is flawed both in the procedure through which it was imposed, *Barbera v. State,*505 So.2d 413 (Fla.1987), and by the fact that the grounds eventually assigned are insufficient. *Saldana v. State,*510 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Since new grounds may not now be stated for deviation, *Shull v. Dugger,*515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987); *Harris v. State,*520 So.2d 688 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), the cause is remanded for resentencing within the guidelines, as enhanced by the one cell increase authorized for a probation violation by Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(14).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.