alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 1854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00260]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IS12-302-000]


Enterprise TE Products Pipeline Company LLC; Notice of Change in 
Date of Settlement Conference

    Take notice that the informal settlement conference that was to be 
convened in this proceeding on January 3, 2013, will now be convened 
commencing at 10:00 a.m. on January 10, 2013, at the offices of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, for the purpose of exploring the possible settlement of the 
above-referenced dockets.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as 
defined by 8 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to 
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status 
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please 
send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c3a2a0a0a6b0b0aaa1aaafaab7ba83a5a6b1a0eda4acb5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="771614141204041e151e1b1e030e371112051459101801">[email protected]</span></a> or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with 
the required accommodations.
    For additional information, please contact James Keegan, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#640e050901174a0f010103050a24020116074a030b12"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b1dbd0dcd4c29fdad4d4d6d0dff1d7d4c3d29fd6dec7">[email protected]</span></a>, 202-502-8158 or Gary Denkinger, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#066b677465286263686d6f68616374466063746528616970"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cba6aab9a8e5afaea5a0a2a5acaeb98badaeb9a8e5aca4bd">[email protected]</span></a>, 202-502-8662.

    Dated: January 3, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00260 Filed 1-8-13; 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 4.3**AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT     White Electronic Designs Corporation (the “Company”) and American Stock Transfer and TrustCompany (the “Rights Agent”) hereby amend the Rights Agreement dated as of December 6, 1996 (the“Rights Agreement”) and amended on May 3,1998, by and between the Company and the Rights Agent, inaccordance with Section 27 of the Rights Agreement.     1. Section 7(a) of the Rights Agreement is hereby amended and restated to read as follows(inserted language is bolded):     (a) The registered holder of any Right Certificate may exercise the Rights evidencedthereby (except as otherwise provided herein) in whole or in part at any time after theDistribution Date upon surrender of the Right Certificate, with the form of election topurchase on the reverse side thereof duly executed, to the Rights Agent at the office of theRights Agent designated for such purpose, together with payment of the Purchase Price foreach Common Share as to which the Rights are exercised, at or prior to the earliest of (i)the Close of Business on **December 5, 2016** (the “Final Expiration Date”), (ii) the time atwhich the Rights are redeemed as provided in Section 23 hereof (the “Redemption Date”), or(iii) the time at which such Rights are exchanged as provided in Section 24 hereof.     2. Section 7(b) of the Rights Agreement is hereby amended and restated to read as follows(inserted language is bolded):     (b) The Purchase Price for each Common Share pursuant to the exercise of a Right shallinitially be **$40.00** and shall be subject to adjustment from time to time as provided inSections 11 and 13 hereof and shall be payable in lawful money of the United States ofAmerica in accordance with paragraph (c) below.     3. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, or unless the context otherwise requires,all terms used herein have the meaning assigned to them in the Rights Agreement. The RightsAgreement and this Amendment No. 2 shall be read together as one instrument. The Rights Agent andthe Company hereby waive any notice requirement under the Rights Agreement pertaining to thematters covered by this Amendment No. 2.     4. This Amendment shall be deemed to be a contract made under the laws of the State of Indianaand for all purposes shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of such stateapplicable to contracts to be made and performed entirely within such state. This Amendment may beexecuted in any number of counterparts and each such counterpart shall be deemed an original, andall such counterparts shall together constitute a single instrument. This Amendment No. 2 iseffective December 5, 2006.
1

 
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment No. 2 to be duly executed andattested as of the date last written above.      RIGHTS AGENTAMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER AND TRUST COMPANY
June 21, 2021

 

AMS Livestock, Poultry, and Grain Market News

Highlights of the Evaluation of Formula Based Cattle Purchases

Formula purchase arrangements of fed cattle use an agreed to methodology of calculating the net price. The

final net price for some formula purchases may include the application of any premiums or discounts associated 

with carcass performance as specified in the transaction agreement. In response to the cattle industry’s desire 

for more transparency in the formula slaughter cattle market, AMS conducted an evaluation of formula-based 

cattle purchases reported under the requirements of the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act and regulation to 

learn more about the makeup of these purchases. More specifically, AMS analyzed formula net price data for 

slaughter cattle purchases reported between January 4, 2021 and May 31, 2021, to evaluate the proportion of 

these formula purchases with no premium or discount applied and therefore likely priced from data referenced 

on another AMS report; versus similar formula cattle purchases that also included at least one premium or 

discount for quality, yield, weight, or other factor. Further, AMS evaluated this on a regional basis to see if 

there were any marketing differences among the states across the 5-area region. 

Here are a few of the highlights found from this evaluation:

• Despite some variations among the five regions, a solid majority of formula purchases in all areas do 

have at least one premium or discount applied.

• The northern regions of Nebraska and Iowa/Minnesota exhibited the highest proportion of transactions 

with no premium or discount applied. 

• While the proportion of cattle in which no premium or discount was applied likely represents formula 

transactions limited strictly to price reference methodology, it’s also possible that some of these cattle 

simply met baseline specifications in which no premium or discount thresholds were triggered. A 

complete determination cannot be made under the current LMR reporting requirements.

 LMR Formula Net Premium/Discount Application Percentages Jan-May 2021

National 5-Area TX/OK/NM KS NE CO IA/MN

At least 1 Premium or Discount was Applied 82% 82% 86% 85% 74% 84% 65%

No Premium or Discount Applied 18% 18% 14% 15% 26% 16% 35%

* 5-Area - Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota. 

TX/OK/NM - Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico; KS – Kansas; NE – Nebraska; CO – Colorado; IA/MN – Iowa, Minnesota.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5



<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         592,513
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,795,519
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    5,062,294
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               10,172,095
<PP&E>                                         31,154,954
<DEPRECIATION>                                 16,078,440
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 25,940,934
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,200,398
<BONDS>                                        5,550,595
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,809,171
<OTHER-SE>                                     12,193,399
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   25,940,934
<SALES>                                        42,839,759
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               42,839,759
<CGS>                                          38,778,823
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  38,778,823
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             430,443
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (300,125)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (97,705)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (202,420)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (202,420)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.07)




</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 15, 2015

No. 04-15-00012-CV

John E. RODARTE, Sr.,

Appellant

v.

Ralph LOPEZ, et al,

Appellees

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CI-18884

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On March 25, 2015, we ordered that any contest to appellant’s affidavit of indigence be 

filed in this court by April 6, 2015. No contest has been filed. Accordingly, appellant may 

proceed in this appeal without prepayment of costs.

We order Bexar County District Clerk Donna K. McKinney to file the clerk’s record

by May 15, 2015. No extensions of time will be granted absent a motion that (1) establishes 

extraordinary circumstances that prevent the timely filing the record, (2) advises the court of 

what efforts have been expended to prepare the record and the status of completion, and (3) 

provides the court reasonable assurance the record will be completed and filed by the requested 

extended deadline. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leslie K. CUMHURIYET, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 78-324.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

June 28, 1979.

Rehearing Denied July 19, 1979.

Certiorari Granted Dec. 24, 1979.

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., David W. Robbins, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., David K. Rees, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

J. Gregory Walta, Colorado State Public Defender, llene P. Buchalter, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

COYTE, Judge.

Defendant, Leslie K. Cumhuriyet, pled guilty to misdemeanor theft of a credit card after a plea bargain in which charges of second degree forgery, fraudulent use of a credit device, and conspiracy to commit second degree forgery were dismissed. She was placed on probation and as one condition of probation was ordered to pay restitution in the sum of $21.98. On this appeal she contends error in the imposition of this condition. We affirm.

The presentence report indicates that the charges against defendant and a codefend-ant were based upon the use of a credit card for the purchase of a coat at a Fashion Bar store in south Denver and the coat was recovered. The report also noted that the same credit card had been used at another Fashion Bar store earlier the same day to purchase merchandise in the amount of $43.96. The probation officer recommended that defendant be ordered to pay her share, /. e., one-half of this amount, as restitution. Over defendant’s objection that no charges were filed against her in connection with this incident, the trial court adopted this recommendation and ordered the restitution payment along with other conditions of probation.

Defendant contends that a condition of probation requiring restitution for an offense with which she was not charged and for which her guilt has not been established is violative of her rights to due process of law and is not authorized by statute. We disagree.

Probation is a privilege rather than a right. *Holdren v. People,*168 Colo. 474, 452 P.2d 28 (1969).

Here, defendant signed a probation agreement and the trial court found that defendant understood the conditions of her probation, agreed to abide by the terms thereof, and understood that violation of *691the conditions could result in arrest and further judicial action. If a defendant feels that the terms of the probation are unduly harsh, the defendant is free to refuse probation. *People v. Miller,*256 Cal.App.2d 348, 64 Cal.Rptr. 20 (1967).

Judgment affirmed.

VAN CISE and STERNBERG, JJ., concur.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1259 

To authorize private parties to compel the Securities and Exchange 

Commission to seek sanctions by filing civil actions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2019 

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio (for himself, Mr. HILL of Arkansas, Mr. BANKS, Mr. 

KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. LAMALFA, and Mr. 

POSEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To authorize private parties to compel the Securities and 

Exchange Commission to seek sanctions by filing civil 

actions, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Due Process Restora5 tion Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1259 IH

1 SEC. 2. PRIVATE PARTIES AUTHORIZED TO COMPEL THE 

2 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION TO 

3 SEEK SANCTIONS BY FILING CIVIL ACTIONS. 

4 Title I of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 

5 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 41. PRIVATE PARTIES AUTHORIZED TO COMPEL THE 

8 COMMISSION TO SEEK SANCTIONS BY FILING 

9 CIVIL ACTIONS. 

10 ‘‘(a) TERMINATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PRO11 CEEDING.—In the case of any person who is a party to 

12 a proceeding brought by the Commission under a securi13 ties law, to which section 554 of title 5, United States 

14 Code, applies, and against whom an order imposing a 

15 cease and desist order and a penalty may be issued at 

16 the conclusion of the proceeding, that person may, not 

17 later than 20 days after receiving notice of such pro18 ceeding, and at that person’s discretion, require the Com19 mission to terminate the proceeding. 

20 ‘‘(b) CIVIL ACTION AUTHORIZED.—If a person re21 quires the Commission to terminate a proceeding pursuant 

22 to subsection (a), the Commission may bring a civil action 

23 against that person for the same remedy that might be 

24 imposed. 

25 ‘‘(c) VENUE.—An action brought by the Commission 

26 under subsection (b) may be brought only in accordance 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1259 IH

1 with the requirements relating to venue under section 

2 1391 of title 28, United States Code.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
##### 



SUBSIDIARIES OF
WHITE ELECTRONIC DESIGNS CORPORATION
 Name of Subsidiary
    
    
    
    DomicileInterface Data Systems, Inc.
    
    
    
    ArizonaPanelview, Incorporated
    
    
    
    OregonIDS Acquisition Corporation (1)
    
    
    
    ArizonaElectronic Designs, Inc.
    
    
    
    DelawareBowmar/A.L.I., Inc.
    
    
    
    MassachusettsGraymor Coatings, Incorporated (2)
    
    
    
    Oregon
 
 (1)
    
    IDS Acquisition Corporation is a direct subsidiary of Interface Data Systems, Inc.(2)
    
    Graymor Coatings, Incorporated is a direct subsidiary of Panelview,
Incorporated.
Agricultural Marketing Service, Specialty Crops Program, Specialty Crops Inspection Division

PATCH # 055 FEIRS Winter Pears – Reporting Skin Breaks/Stem Punctures (June 19, 2020)

SCI Division Inspection Series

Page 1 of 2

PATCH # 055

DOCUMENT: Fresh Electronic Inspection Reporting/Resource System (FEIRS) electronic 

programs revision when reporting skin breaks/stem punctures for winter pears.

REMARKS: The following guidance is provided for FEIRS users when encountering winter 

pears showing one skin break 1/8 to 3/16 inch including diameter or depth. 

Currently, FEIRS is incorrectly computing the defect values on the scoresheet portion of FEIRS 

while inspecting winter pears only. 

The above example is incorrect. According to the standard, “not more than 15 percent of the 

pears in any container may have not more than one skin break from one-eighth inch to threesixteenths inch, inclusive, in diameter or depth.”

Create and maintain a separate column created in the FEIRS Other Columns. To create a custom

column, select the “ADD COLUMN” button. Choose the second option (as seen above) so the 

percentage scored is tracked. Name this column “Single Skin Break/Unhealed Stem Puncture

from 1/8 to 3/16 of an inch in depth or diameter.” Maintaining this other column is critical. The 

inspector is to maintain this percentage in order to determine if the 15% allowance has been 

exceeded for any one sample. 
This PATCH represents official guidance. This PATCH is scheduled to be incorporated into the 

document listed on the first page. After incorporation into the document listed above this 

PATCH will become obsolete.

PATCH #055 FEIRS Winter Pears – Reporting Skin Breaks/Stem Punctures (June 19, 2020)

SCI Division Inspection Series

Page 2 of 2

If it is determined that any one sample exceeds the 15% allowance, the defect must now be 

recorded in the formal “Defects” portion of the notesheet. The values from “Other Columns” will

need to be entered as the amount to be scored in the “Defects” column as the allowance was 

exceeded.

When any one sample exceeds the 15% allowance, the inspector must return to each sample 

within the lot’s scoresheet. Then, enter the amount that was scored previously in the Other 

Columns into the Defects column on the scoresheet. The correct percentage scored for the entire 

lot will be reported and represented on the final certificate.

When prompted with the exception popup by making the transfer changes, the inspector is to 

follow normal procedures and report the following statement “skin breaks/stem punctures exceed 

15%.”

In either scenario, prior to completing or signing the certificate, the inspector is to uncheck the 

box in the “Lot Summary” portion of the certificate that represents the affected specimens 

encountered. This is in line with typical guidance received when scoring an allowance in that the 

percentages are to only be reported when the provision, or allowance, is exceeded.
**Exhibit 99.4**

 

**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 Annual Report of Nexen Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Una M. Power, Interim Chief Financial 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 to the best of my knowledge:

 

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.

 

 
| By:    | /s/   Una M. Power                |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|
|   | Una   M. Power                    |   |
|   | Interim   Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

 

February 24, 2013

 

1

----
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

E.H., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-4093

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed June 27, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; Mark Hofstad, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Clark E. Green, Assistant Public Defender, 

Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, VILLANTI, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
# C_2016202EN.01008101.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/81

---

Article 84

The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may establish measures to promote and support the action of Member States in the field of crime prevention, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States.

---
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DEY LP, NKA MYLAN SPECIALTY, L.P., DEY INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees

v. 

TEVA PARENTERAL MEDICINES, INC., TEVA 

PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., TEVA 

PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.,

Defendants-Appellants

______________________ 

2014-1434

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of West Virginia in No. 1:09-cv-00087-

IMK, Judge Irene M. Keeley.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

EVAN CHESLER, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, New 

York, NY, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented by DAVID GREENWALD, DAVID R. MARRIOTT, ROGER 

BROOKS. 

BRUCE M. GAGALA, Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd, Chicago, IL, argued for defendants-appellants. Also represented 
 

by DAVID RYAN VAN BUSKIRK, JEFFREY B. BURGAN;

ELIZABETH CROMPTON, Washington, DC. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, PLAGER, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

April 17, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court