alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 88061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27882]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2570-000]


Eagle Creek Racine Hydro, LLC; Notice of Authorization for 
Continued Project Operation

    The license for the Racine Hydroelectric Project No. 2570 was 
issued for a period ending November 30, 2023.
    Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the 
Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-
year an annual license to the then licensee(s) under the terms and 
conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the 
project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other 
applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived 
the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) 
of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth 
at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an 
application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to 
operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 
license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the 
Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project 
has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be 
required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations 
until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or 
otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2570 is issued to 
Eagle Creek Racine Hydro, LLC for a period effective December 1, 2023, 
through November 30, 2024, or until the issuance of a new license for 
the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. 
If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place 
on or before November 30, 2024, notice is hereby given that, pursuant 
to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA 
is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the 
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that Eagle Creek Racine Hydro, LLC is authorized to 
continue operation of the Racine Hydroelectric Project under the terms 
and conditions of the prior license until the issuance of a subsequent 
license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever 
comes first.

    Dated: December 13, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27882 Filed 12-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
NOTE: This orderis nonprecedential. 

# Wintteb**~tate5** 

# QCourt of**~eaI5** 

# for tbejfeberaI QCtrcutt

IN 

### RE ABBOTT DIABETES CARE, INC. 2011-1516, -1517 (Reexamination Nos. 90/007,903, 90/007,910) Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board ofPatentAppeals and Interferences. ON MOTION Before REYNA, Circuit Judge. 

### ORDER DexCom, Inc. moves for leave to file a briefamicus curiae in support of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc. opposes. DexCom, Inc. replies. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: The motion is denied.IN RE ABBOTT DIABETES 

## FEB 292012 Date cc: Gregory 

### A. Castanias, Esq. 

### s25 Raymond T. Chen, Esq. Brian M. Kramer, Esq. FOR THE COURT lsI Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk

FILED 2



### u.s. COURTOFAPPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT



### FEB 292012

JANHORBAlY 

### CLERK
#### State v. Johnson

16410

3/10/95

Affirmed
#### Norwood E. MARSHALL, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant In Error.

No. A-13108.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 7, 1962.

*196S. S. Lawrence, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BRETT, Judge.

This is an attempted appeal by Norwood Ervell Marshall from an order of the district court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, made and entered May 25, 1961 by Hon. Raymond W. Graham, wherein he revoked a five-year suspended sentence made and entered in the district court of said county on a charge against this appellant of robbery by force and fear.

The plaintiff in error seeks to vacate and set aside said order by this appeal. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the attempted appeal. We are of the opinion that the motion is well taken and should be sustained, on the authority of Burgett v. State, Okl.Cr., 362 P.2d 975; and State v. Humphrey, 85 Okl.Cr. 153, 186 P.2d 664. In the former case it was held:

> “Order of Court of Common Pleas revoking suspension of sentence was not appealable. 22 O.S.1951 § 992.

> “Revocation of suspension of sentence is not a matter of right but is purely within trial court’s discretion. 22 O.S.1951 § 992.

> “Vesting of power in trial court to revoke suspension of sentence does not deprive defendant of any of his constitutional rights. 22 O.S.1951 § 992.”

Considering this attempted appeal on the basis of an application for writ of habeas corpus, there is no valid basis upon which to grant relief in habeas corpus. The writ of habeas corpus can not be used to perform the office of a writ of error on appeal, but is limited to cases in which the judgment and sentence of the trial court is clearly void. In re Application of Davis, Okl.Cr., 348 P.2d 545; Ex parte Owens, Okl.Cr., 295 P.2d 827.

Moreover, where the court has jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, jurisdiction of the subject matter, and authority under the law to pronounce the judgment and sentence rendered, defendant is not entitled to release from the peni*197tentiary by habeas corpus, unless the trial court had lost jurisdiction by reason of depriving the accused of some substantial or fundamental right. In re Davis, supra; Roden v. Raines, Okl.Cr., 361 P.2d 1103.

We do not find in this record that any of the foregoing elements of jurisdiction were lacking, or that anything occurred to cause the court to lose jurisdiction. Ex parte Parrott, 97 Okl.Cr. 8, 256 P.2d 462.

Moreover, we have carefully read the record herein and the action of the trial court in sustaining the petition for revocation is amply supported by the evidence.

The motion of the Attorney General to dismiss the attempted appeal is sustained, the appeal is dismissed and writ of habeas corpus is denied.

NIX, P. J., and BUSSEY, J.,' concur.
#### In re Habeas Corpus of Johnny Lee VALENTINE.

No. A-13020.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 14, 1961.

Carroll Samara, and Marion Opala, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., James H. Harrod, County Atty. Okla. County, John M. Amick, Asst. County Atty. Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City, for respondent.

BUSSEY, Judge.

Johnny Lee Valentine, is imprisoned in the county jail of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, after his suspended sentence on a conviction of burglary in the second degree was revoked by the Honorable W. R. Wallace, Jr., Judge of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. The intention to lodge an appeal from said revocation of suspended sentence was announced in open court and a request that bond be set for the defendant pending said appeal was made. The trial court refused to set bond and this application for bond was filed and argued to this Court.

The application for bond is based upon an original holding by this Court that the order revoking a suspended sentence is an appealable order, decided on February 2, 1961 in Burgett v. State, A 12,976. When counsel appeared before this Court for oral argument they were informed that the Burgett decision was not yet final and a petition for rehearing had been filed. Since that time this Court has reconsidered its holding and has withdrawn the decision, stating in substance that an order revoking suspended judgment and sentence is not an appealable order. 362 P.2d 975. It therefore follows that since no appeal will lie from an order revoking a suspended judgment and sentence, the application for bond pending appeal in this case should be and the same is hereby denied.

NIX, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________ ) JERRY E. ROBERTSON , ) ) Plaintiff, ) )
v. ) Civil Action No. 20

- 3168 (UNA) ) J EFF. CO. ATTY’S OFFICE , ) ) Defendant. )

_________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The plaintiff ’s claims pertain to defendant’s efforts to collect unpaid child support

. Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution,

laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In addition, federal district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the suit

is between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The complaint does not articulate a claim arising under the United States Constitution or federal law; therefore , the plaintiff does not demonstrate federal question jurisdiction

. While amount in controversy allegedly exceeds $75,000 , because the parties are citizens of Kentucky , the plaintiff fails to establish diversity jurisdiction. Furthermore, because none of the parties appear to reside in the District of Columbia, and because none of the events giving rise to the plaintiff’s claims occurred here, it is doubtful that this di strict is the proper venue for resolution of the plaintiff’s claims.The Court will grant the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss

the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An Order is issued

sep arately.

DATE: November 4, 2020 /s/ KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

      ( print page 88425)    

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 21, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 15, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 148 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-124, CP2024-130.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-28063 Filed 12-20-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
# C_2009205EN.01000801.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden)) — SCT Industri AB i likvidation v Alpenblume AB

(Case C-111/08) (1)

1

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments - Scope - Insolvency)

2009/C 205/12

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SCT Industri AB i likvidation

Applicant:

Defendant: Alpenblume AB

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta domstolen — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Judgment of a court in Member State A ruling that the liquidator in insolvency proceedings in Member State B does not have power to transfer the assets of the company in liquidation located in Member State A — Action for recovery of property brought by the transferee company to recover the shares in a company which it had acquired in the insolvency proceedings but which were taken back by the transferring company pursuant to the judgment annulling the transfer

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The exception provided for in Article 1(2)(b) of Council Regulation No 44/2001 (EC) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as applying to a judgment of a court of Member State A regarding registration of ownership of shares in a company having its registered office in Member State A, according to which the transfer of those shares was to be regarded as invalid on the ground that the court of Member State A did not recognise the powers of a liquidator from a Member State B in the context of insolvency proceedings conducted and closed in Member State B.

---

(1)  OJ C 116, 09.05.2008.

1

---
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-3975

___________ James Eli Huff, II, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Linda Sanders, Warden, * FCC - Forrest City, Arkansas, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 5, 2009 Filed: December 14, 2009

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. James Huff appeals from the district court’s 1 order granting in part and denying in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. He al so has filed a motion to supplement the appellate record with a documen t filed in the district cour t, which we grant. Having carefully reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its

1 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the Recommended Disposition of the Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.conclusions of law de novo, see Chavez v. Weber , 497 F.3d 796, 801 (8th Cir. 2007), we conclude the district cour t’s decision was correct. See Reno v. Koray , 515 U.S. 50, 62-63, 65 (1995) (no sentencing credit fo r court-ordered time spent in community treatment center after release on bail and pending sentencing; notwithstanding restrictive conditions, time was not “official detention” within meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)); United States v. Johnson , 418 F.3d 879, 880-81 (8th Cir. 2005) (defendant not entitled to credit for time served in halfway house during period of supervised release). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           7,850
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       63
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,913
<PP&E>                                              49
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,984
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,675
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,307
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,984
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,258
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 280
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,346)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,346)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,346)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
19355

#### State v. Stant

Affirmed
CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-64439), dated September 28, 1998, pertaining to the SUGEN, Inc. 1992
Stock Option Plan and the 1994 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan, and in
the  Registration  Statement  (Form S-3 No.  333-37687),  dated October 10, 1997
pertaining  to the  registration  of 1,780,000  shares of common  stock,  of our
report dated February 5, 1999,  except for Note 13 as to which the date is March
24, 1999 with respect to the consolidated  financial  statements of SUGEN,  Inc.
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.




Palo Alto, California
March 29, 1999
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
                                                                      ----------
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS








We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus constituting part
of the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-18867) of Citizens
Bancshares, Inc. of our report dated January 16, 1998 on the consolidated
balance sheets of the Company as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related
consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders' equity and cash
flows for the three years ended December 31, 1997.


                                              /s/ CROWE, CHIZEK and COMPANY LLP
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              CROWE, CHIZEK and COMPANY LLP


Columbus, Ohio
February 23, 1998
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2 0 2 4

- 0 530

_____________________________
R OY S TOKES ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appeal

— Original Jurisdiction

.

August 28, 2024

P ER C URIAM

. The Court dismisses the petition for belated appeal as untimely filed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(5)(A).

L EWIS , B.L. T HOMAS , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Roy Stokes
, pro se, Petitioner

.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8

                             GIANT INDUSTRIES, INC.

                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                            1998 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

         This Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") to the Giant Industries, Inc.
1998 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan") is adopted by the Board of Directors (the
"Board") of Giant Industries, Inc. (the "Corporation") pursuant to the authority
granted to the Board in Section 16 of the Plan. Capitalized terms used but not
defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan. The Plan hereby is
amended as follows:

         1.       Section 14(a) of the Plan hereby is amended in its entirety to
                  read as follows:

                           "(a)     This Plan shall be administered by the Board
                           or by the Compensation Committee of the Board, which
                           shall be composed of not less than two members of the
                           Board, each of whom shall be a "non-employee
                           director" within the meaning of Rule 16b-3. For
                           purposes of grants and awards pursuant to, and
                           administration of, this Plan, the terms "Committee"
                           and "Board" are used interchangeably."

         2.       Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the terms and
                  conditions of the Plan remain in full force and effect.

         3.       The effective date of this Amendment shall be September 13,
                  2000.