alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24485-24486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9782]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that 
members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings 
related to the transmission planning activities of the Midwest 
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO):

MISO Advisory Committee--April 18, 2012.
Order 1000--Right of First Refusal Task Team--April 26, 2012.

    The above-referenced meeting will be held at: MISO Headquarters, 
720 City Center Drive, Carmel, IN 46032.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to the public.
    Further information may be found at www.misoenergy.org.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters 
at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. ER12-715, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, 
Inc.
Docket No. ER12-480, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, 
Inc.
Docket No. ER12-309, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, 
Inc.
Docket No. ER11-1844, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, 
Inc.
Docket No. EL11-56, FirstEnergy Service Company.
Docket No. EL11-30, E.ON Climate & Renewables North America, LLC v. 
Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-24-000, Pioneer Transmission LLC v. Midwest Independent 
Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-28-000, Xcel Energy Services Inc. v. American 
Transmission Company, LLC
Docket No. OA08-53, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, 
Inc.

    For more information, contact Christopher Miller, Office of Energy 
Markets Regulation, Federal Energy

[[Page 24486]]

Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5936 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#65060d170c16110a150d00174b080c0909001725030017064b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="107378627963647f607875623e7d797c7c756250767562733e777f66">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: April 17, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9782 Filed 4-23-12; 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>
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Certification pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Courtney C. Smith, Chief Executive Officer of Specialty Underwriters
Alliance, Inc. (the Company), pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, do hereby certify as follows: (i) The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) The information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certification this 23rd day of
December 2004. /s/ Courtney C. SmithCourtney C. Smith
Chief Executive Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Specialty Underwriters Alliance, Inc. and will be retained by
Specialty Underwriters Alliance, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1347 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1347

To amend the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act to reauthorize 
                                the Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2019

 Mr. Kind (for himself and Mr. Wittman) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act to reauthorize 
                                the Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Migratory Birds of the Americas 
Conservation Act''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACT.

    Section 10 of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 
U.S.C. 6109) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    ``(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry 
out this Act $6,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 through 2025.
    ``(b) Use of Funds.--Of the amounts made available under subsection 
(a) for each fiscal year, not less than 75 percent shall be expended 
for projects carried out at a location outside of the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alvin T. Bush, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J.—Attempted Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE VIII

ECONOMIC AND MONETARY POLICY

ECONOMIC AND MONETARY POLICY

CHAPTER 2

MONETARY POLICY

Article 133

Without prejudice to the powers of the European Central Bank, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall lay down the measures necessary for the use of the euro as the single currency. Such measures shall be adopted after consultation of the European Central Bank.

---
Formal Recommendation by the 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) 

to the National Organic Program (NOP)

 

Date: October 28, 2010 

Subject: Sunset Review of phosphoric acid as listed on §205.605 (b), 

Nonagricultural (nonorganic) substances allowed as ingredients 

in or on processed products labeled as “organic” or “made with 

organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)).” 

Chair: Daniel G. Giacomini 

 

 

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action X 

Guidance Statement 

Other 

 

Statement of the Recommendation (Including Recount of Vote): 

 

Phosphoric acid is listed on 205.605(b) with the annotation “cleaning of foodcontact surfaces and equipment only.” This substance was scheduled to 

sunset off the National List in 2012, was reviewed by the NOSB, and a motion 

was made for the re-listing of this substance at the October 2010 meeting. 

 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with 

OFPA and NOP): 

 

 The Handling Committee’s recommendation covering this material is attached. 

There were no public written or verbal comments opposing the committee’s 

recommendation, and the material was recommended for relisting by the full 

NOSB as shown below. 

 

NOSB Vote: 

Moved: Joe Dickson Second: Tracy Miedema 

Yes: 14 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recusal: 0 

 
National Organic Standards Board 

Handling Committee 

Sunset Recommendation – 2012 

Phosphoric Acid 

September 7, 2010 

List: 205.605 Nonagricultural (nonorganic) substances allowed as ingredients in 

or on processed products labeled as “organic” or “made with organic (specified 

ingredients or food group(s)).” 

(b) Synthetics allowed 

Phosphoric acid —cleaning of food-contact surfaces and equipment only. 

Committee Summary 

Phosphoric acid is used in cleaning operations to remove encrusted surface matter and 

mineral scale found on metal equipments such as boilers and steam producing 

equipment. The chemical reaction of phosphoric acid with minerals found in deposits 

makes them water soluble and easy to remove. The original technical review found 

phosphoric acid to necessary for organic processing and to meet the OFPA 2119(m) 

criteria when used for the cleaning of food contact surfaces and equipment only. 

Review of the original recommendation, historical documents, and public comments 

does not reveal unacceptable risks to the environment, human, or animal health as a 

result of the use or manufacture of this material. There is no new information 

contradicting the original recommendation which was the basis for the previous NOSB 

decision to list this material. 

Committee Recommendation(s)

The handling committee recommends the renewal of the following substances in this 

use category as published in the final rule: 

Phosphoric acid —cleaning of food-contact surfaces and equipment only. 

Committee Vote 

Motion: Joe Dickson Second: Steve DeMuri 

Yes: 6 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1
NEIW YORK. NY 

TYSONS CORNER . VA 

CHICAGO, IL 

STAMFORD.C T 

PARSIPPANY. N J 

KELLEY DRYE S WARRE N LLP 

A LIMITE D LIABILIT Y PARTNETRSHIP 

305 0 K. STREET, N.W. 

SUITE 40 0 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000 7 

(202 ) 342-840 0 

BRUSSELS, BELGIU M 

FACSIMIL E 

< 20 £ ) 34a-a4 5 I 

ww\A/. kelleydrye.co m 

DIRECT LINE: (202) 342-8528 

EMAIL: dfjsher@kelleydrye.com 

AFFILIATE OFFICES 

MUMBAI , INDIA 

June 9, 2010 

BY HAND DELIVERY 

Ms. Dorothy Y. Beard 

Director, Office of Information Systems 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

M-30, Room W12-140 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

CD 

Re: Application of United Parcel Service Co. for Allocation of One Hong Kong-Dubai 

Fifth-Freedom Frequency, Docket OST-2010-0143 

Dear Ms. Beard: 

On June 1, 2010, United Parcel Service Co. ("UPS") filed an Application for an 

allocation of two Hong Kong-Dubai fifth-freedom frequencies in the above-referenced docket. 

On June 2, 2010, UPS amended its Apphcafion to request an allocation of one Hong Kong-Dubai 

fifth-freedom frequency. UPS polled all parties upon whom service was required by the 

Department's regulations and hereby informs the Department that no party has any objection to 

UPS's amended Application. Accordingly, UPS requests that the Department grant its amended 

Application as soon as possible. 

Thank you very much for your assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Danielle K. Fisher 

Attorney for United Parcel Service Co. 

cc: All parties (via e-mail) 

Thuy Cooper (via e-mail)
ibbons Pickering 

iNeNe 

v. Babayan, 106 Nev. 155, 174, 787 P.2d 805, 819-20 (1990). For these 

reasons, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Saitta 

J. 

cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court 

Hon. Jack B. Ames, Senior Judge 

Coyer Law Office 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 4ffpim
JEREMY JOSEPH HAMMILL,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-0995

Opinion filed April 14, 2015.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original 

Jurisdiction.

Jeremy Joseph Hammill, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the 

merits.

ROBERTS, SWANSON, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3500

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Sarah Jean Beranek,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

 Submitted: April 8, 2015

 Filed: April 15, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

After Sarah Beranek pleaded guiltyto drug offenses, the district court imposed

1

consecutive sentences totaling 109 months in prison and three years of supervised

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Northern District of Iowa.
release, after granting the government’s U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 departure motion, reducing

the Guidelines range by 10%, and sentencing Beranek at the top of the reduced range. 

Beranek appeals. Her counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that the sentence is

unreasonable.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable. See

United States v. Montgomery, 525 F.3d 627, 629 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review). 

The district court correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, permissibly

granted the downward departure, and properly considered and weighed relevant

sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Although the

sentence falls within the Guidelines range calculated before accounting for the

substantial-assistance reduction, the sentence also falls within the Guidelines range

reduced by 10%. Further, the court pointed out that it had granted a 12-month

reduction,indicating that withoutthe substantial-assistance reduction, Beranek would

have received a 121-month prison sentence. See United States v. Deering, 762 F.3d

783, 786 (8th Cir. 2014). 

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

As for counsel’s motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to

withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s 1994

Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement The Criminal Justice Act of 1964. 

We therefore deny counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to

counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment.

-2-
Judge Colloton would grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See United States

v. Eredia, 578 Fed. Appx. 620, 621 (8th Cir. 2014) (Colloton, J., concurring in part

and dissenting in part).

______________________________

-3-
NO. 07-04-0458-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL C

	DECEMBER 15, 2005

	______________________________

	ROBERT W. PAIGE, M. D., APPELLANT

	V.

	DUDLEY R. STANLEY AND FLAGSHIP FINANCIAL, APPELLEES

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

	NO. 47,937-A; HONORABLE RICHARD DAMBOLD, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and HANCOCK, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	By order of February 3, 2005, this appeal was abated pursuant to a notice of bankruptcy filed by Kent Ries, trustee for appellant Robert W. Paige, M.D.  Pending before this Court is the trustee’s motion to reinstate the appeal and motion to dismiss the appeal with prejudice.  Pursuant to Rule 8.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we reinstate the appeal and pursuant to Rule 42.1(a), grant the motion to dismiss. 

	Accompanying Paige’s motion to dismiss this appeal is (1) the bankruptcy court’s order granting a motion to compromise the claims of appellees Dudley R. Stanley and Flagship Financial Corporation, and (2) an exhibit reflecting the debtor’s discharge as of November 9, 2005. 

	Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with prejudice.  Having dismissed the appeal at the request of Kent Ries, trustee for appellant Robert W. Paige, M.D., no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

						Don H. Reavis

						    Justice
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT (10)(b)
                                ---------------


                        OPINION AND CONSENT OF ACTUARY
<PAGE>

          [Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company Letterhead]

April 10, 2002


Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company
4333 Edgewood Road NE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52499-0001

Re:    Separate Account VA-2L
       Registration on Form N-4  SEC File No. 33-49998

Dear Sir/Madam:

With regard to the above registration statement, I have examined such documents
and made such inquiries as I have deemed necessary and appropriate, and on the
basis of such examination, have the following opinions:

Fees and charges deducted under the Dreyfus/Transamerica Triple Advantage
Variable Annuity policies are those deemed necessary to appropriately reflect:

(1)    the expenses incurred in the acquisition and distribution of the
       Policies,

(2)    the expenses associated with the development and servicing of the
       policies,

(3)    the assumption of certain risks arising from the operation and management
       of the policies and/or riders to the policy and that provides for a
       reasonable margin of profit.

Fees and charges assessed against the policy values in the variable account
include:

(i)    Service Charge and Administrative Charge

(ii)   Surrender Charge

(iii)  Mortality and Expense Risk Fee (M&E)

(iv)   Taxes (including premium and other taxes if applicable)

(v)    Any applicable rider fees or charges

The magnitude of each of the individual charges listed above in (i) through (v)
is established in the pricing of the Dreyfus/Transamerica Triple Advantage
Variable Annuity, to achieve a reasonable Return on Investment (ROI), which is
within the range of industry practice with respect to comparable variable
annuity products.
<PAGE>

Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company
April 10, 2002
Page 2



Except by coincidence, it is not expected that actual charges assessed in a
given year would exactly offset actual expenses incurred. Acquisition expenses
(as well as major product and/or systems development expenses) are incurred "up
front" and recovered, with a reasonable profit margin, through future years'
charges. In addition, the company cannot increase certain charges under the
Policies in the pricing process.

Therefore, in my opinion, the fees and charges deducted under the Policies, in
the aggregate, are reasonable in relation to the services rendered, the expenses
expected to be incurred, and the risks assumed by the company.

I hereby consent to the use of this opinion, which is included as an Exhibit to
the Registration Statement.



       /s/ Calvin R. Birkey
----------------------------------------------
Calvin R. Birkey, FSA, MAAA
Managing Actuary
Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IGNACIO CERVANTES CHAVEZ,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-55697

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-08987-UA-FFM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George H. King, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2015** 

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Ignacio Cervantes Chavez appeals pro se from the district court’s order

denying his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action arising out of the vacatur of his state criminal conviction. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion

FILED

APR 16 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
the district court’s denial of leave to proceed IFP. See O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920

F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Chavez’s motion for

leave to proceed IFP because Chavez failed to allege any facts showing how the

defendants had violated his constitutional rights. See Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank &

Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A district court may deny leave to

proceed [IFP] at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint

that the action is . . . without merit.”); Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334,

1338 (9th Cir. 1986) (elements of a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983).

Chavez’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on November 19, 2014, is

denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-55697
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           OCT-2-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-4-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                OCT-2-1999
<CASH>                                             305
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,678
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (304)
<INVENTORY>                                     14,583
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,714
<PP&E>                                           7,445
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,771
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,130
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        120
<COMMON>                                         1,591
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,491
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,771
<SALES>                                         58,038
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                58,038
<CGS>                                           42,510
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,510
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,916
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 471
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (859)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (301)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (558)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (277)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (835)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASE UNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JOHN KEVIN O' DOWD

NO. 2021 KW 1533

FEBRUARY 25, 2022

In Re: John Kevin O' Dowd, applying for supervisory writs, 

22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, 

No. 506, 284. 

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., PENZATO AND HESTER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. 

VGW

AHP

CHH

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEP CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT