alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11125-11126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04346]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

[MMAA104000]

Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area (CPA) Outer Continental 
Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sale 231 (CPA Sale 231); Correction

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On February 14, 2014, BOEM published in the Federal Register 
the Final Notice of Sale (FNOS) for CPA Sale 231. The FNOS refers to a 
document entitled ``List of Blocks Available for Leasing.'' The 
referenced list was included in the FNOS Package, and the FNOS Package 
was made available at the BOEM address and Web site set forth in the 
FNOS. The list identifies blocks to be offered in CPA Sale 231; 
however, due to a clerical error, four blocks, Eugene Island Area, 
Block Number 107, Eugene Island Area, Block Number 222, Eugene Island 
Area, Block Number 223 and South Marsh Island Area, South Addition, 
Block Number 144, were inadvertently omitted from the list.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Samuels, Leasing Division 
Chief, robert.samuels@boem.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of February 14, 
2014, in FR Doc. 2014-03316, (79 FR 8993), on page 8993, the document 
entitled ``List of Blocks Available for Leasing'' is referenced. This 
document has been corrected to include the information below, which has 
been inserted between the entries ``Eugene Island Area, Block Number 
106'' and ``Eugene Island Area, Block Number 109,'' ``Eugene Island 
Area, Block Number 221'' and ``Eugene Island Area, Block Number 225,'' 
and ``South Marsh Island Area, South Addition, Block Number 143'' and 
``South Marsh Island Area, South Addition, Block Number 145.''

L

Y
Y
Y
Y

Map/Official Protraction Diagram (OPD) Name

Eugene Island Area
Eugene Island Area
Eugene Island Area
South Marsh Island Area, South Addition

Map/OPD Number

LA4
LA4
LA4
LA3C

Block Number

107
222
223
144

A/P

A
A
A
A

Available Federal Acreage

5,000.000000
5,000.010000
5,000.020000
5,000.000000

Minimum Bid Per Acre

$25.00
$25.00
$25.00
$25.00

Lease Term

5
5
5
5

Minimum Bid Per Block

$125,000
$125,025
$125,025
$125,000

Rent Per Acre

$7.00
$7.00
$7.00
$7.00

Bid System

RS20
RS20
RS20
RS20

Stipulation(s)

3, 8
3, 8
3, 8
3, 8

[[Page 11126]]

    The corrected ``List of Blocks Available for Leasing'' is available 
at the BOEM address and Web site set forth in the FNOS.

    Dated: February 24, 2014.
Tommy P. Beaudreau,
Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
[FR Doc. 2014-04346 Filed 2-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
```
# C_2009055EN.01003501.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/35

---

Action brought on 16 December 2008 — iPublish Ganske Interactive Publishing v OHIM (representation of a navigational device)

(Case T-555/08)

(2009/C 55/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: iPublish Ganske Interactive Publishing GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by V. Knies, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 3 October 2008 in Case R 709/2008-4 and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 3 October 2008 in Case R 709/2008-4 and

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional trade mark representing a navigational device in the colours black and blue, characterised inter alia by a blue lateral stripe, for goods and services in Classes 9, 39 and 42 (application No 6 092 639).

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since the trade mark applied for has the required distinctive character.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, James Durward, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of UNITECH ENERGY CORP.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

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

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

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

     b)   evaluated the  effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure  controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)   presented  in  this  quarterly   report  our  conclusions   about  the
          effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

     a)   all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or operation of internal
          controls  which could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
          record,  process,   summarize  and  report  financial  data  and  have
          identified for the  registrant's  auditors any material  weaknesses in
          internal controls; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
          employees who have a  significant  role in the  registrant's  internal
          controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: April 21, 2005
/s/ James Durward
------------------------
By: James Durward, CEO
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       WIND PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT

  (Mr. POLIS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the House 
Sustainable Energy and Environmental Coalition to call on Congress to 
renew the wind production tax credit.
  The wind production tax credit provides a small tax incentive to wind 
companies to produce clean domestic energy. This tax incentive promotes 
investment, creates jobs, and encourages deployment of wind energy. At 
the end of this year, the wind production tax credit expires unless 
Congress acts.
  This tax credit is essential to level the playing field for wind 
energy. For instance, the oil and gas industry gets around $40 billion 
in subsidies over 10 years. If we can eliminate oil and gas subsidies, 
let's do it. If not, we need to renew the wind production tax credit. 
The tax credit supports 5,000 jobs in Colorado and 75,000 jobs 
nationally. We cannot afford to lose these jobs.
  Both Democrats and Republicans, Senators and House Members agree we 
need to extend this commonsense tax credit. I urge my colleagues to 
work together to extend the wind production tax credit to protect and 
grow America's thriving wind industry.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000



<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                      1182
<SECURITIES>                                722
<RECEIVABLES>                               4669
<ALLOWANCES>                                614
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            6093
<PP&E>                                      2053
<DEPRECIATION>                              965
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              7248
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1936
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    1
<OTHER-SE>                                  5142
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                7248
<SALES>                                     13594
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13594
<CGS>                                       5243
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               5243
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            7021
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          34
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             1426
<INCOME-TAX>                                564
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         862
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                862
<EPS-BASIC>                               .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                               .16





</TABLE>
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 Annual Report of Castelle (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul Cheng, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.



     /s/ Paul Cheng
Name:    Paul Cheng
Title:   Chief Financial Officer

Date:    March 29, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Castelle and will be retained by Castelle and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       40
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO ANNUAL REPORT OF

LANDRYS RESTAURANTS, INC.

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of title 18, United
States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Landrys Restaurants, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify to such officers knowledge that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K.

Dated: March 16, 2009



/s/ Tilman J. FertittaTilman J. FertittaChairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Rick H. LiemRick H. LiemExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


[The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-K pursuant to Item 601
(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Sections 1350, Chapter 63 of the Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
such filing.]
Finamore, Robert (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Dear Mr. Finamore, 

Roche, Michael <mroche@whitecase.com> 

Friday, December 14, 2012 4:14 PM 

Finamore, Robert (OST) 

Smith, Anne 

Star Flyer Inc, Application for Exemption 

.,;·;I"! 

(. ~.~ ;. i. 

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me this morning regarding Star Flyer Inc: ("Star Flyer")'s pending application 

for an exemption. As we discussed, Star Flyer's largest shareholder (a US entity known as DCM IV, L.P.) announced 

today that it has sold its 475,918 shares (representing 16.61% of Star Flyer's outstanding stock) to Japan's All Nippon 

Airways ("ANA"). As a result of this transaction, ANA is now Star Flyer's largest shareholder with 514,700 shares 

(representing 17.97% of Star Flyer's outstanding stock). Star Flyer respectfully requests that the Department take note. of 

this transaction with respect to Paragraph 8 and Exhibit B of Star Flyer's pending application. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions concerning this matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Michael Roche ') 

Michael A. Roche 1 Associate 

T +1 202 729 2422 M +1 615 957 5397 E mroche@whitecase.com 

White & Case LLP 1 701 Thirteenth Street, NW 1 Washington, DC 20005-3807 

WHtt£&c:ASE 

============================================================================== 

PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential, and is intended only 

for the use of the individual named above and others who have been specifically authorized to receive it. If you 

are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this 

communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, or if any problems occur 

with transmission, please contact sender or call (202) 626-3600. Thank you. 

========================================================================~====~ 

1
# Leftover CSAPR comments that impact ptnonipm sector in NEI2011v1
# These reductions are based on pre-2014 emissions targets from comments (mostly states)
# Based on intermediate workbook CSAPR_ptnonipm_2007v5_vs_2011NEIv1_analysis.xlsx
# Legacy Notes:
#   see /garnet/home/rhc/2012cs/mk_non_consent_decrees_TR1_2012cs_2014cs_google_CNTL_CLOS_PROJ_packets.sas for data details
#   Updated for 2007v5 to remove pre-2008 controls and controls that are no longer needed because 2008NEI is less than CSAPR commments post-control
#   THIS PACKET FINALLY created by R. Mason using: mk_CSAPR_CONTROL_w_TCEQ_2020oilgas.sas
#   THIS PACKET DOES NOT CONTAIN NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROLS
#   NONPOINT CONTROL and 1 unit for ptnonipm growth (WV) are in separate packets
# END LEGACY NOTES
# THIS PACKET EXPORTED FROM: /garnet/home/rhc/2011v6/mk_CONTROL_CSAPR_ptnonipm_2011v6.sas
13099,,SO2,,8.513513514,100,100,,,Y,R,931711,47950613,,,,! reduce unit to match 677 total from GA DEP
13179,,SO2,,100,100,100,,,Y,R,553111,48251513,,,,"! converting to natural gas, zero out, from GA DEP"
33009,,NOX,,20.35458813,100,100,,,Y,R,7868311,3382613,,,,"! NH docket 3854, 72% reduction in CSAPR SCR, SNCR yields 54.68tpy target"
33019,,NOX,,34.2748902,100,100,,,Y,R,7853911,2824413,,,,"! NH docket 3854, 72% reduction in CSAPR SCR, SNCR yields 50.52tpy target"
36001,,NOX,,12.48984565,100,100,,,Y,R,8105211,4818313,,,,"! ISIS controls -replacing wet kilns with new, controlled kilns:  LafargeN.A. OVERRIDE LaFarge Consent decree (50%): per call w/ Elineth 1/12/11: leave existing plant, but add controls. email 1/13/11, 5:50pm: docketID=3857, target=4309tpy"
36001,,SO2,,74.46185998,100,100,,,Y,R,8105211,4818313,,,,"! ISIS controls -replacing wet kilns with new, controlled kilns:  LafargeN.A. OVERRIDE LaFarge Consent decree (90%): per call w/ Elineth 1/12/11: leave existing plant, but add controls. email 1/13/11, 5:50pm: docketID=3857, target=2444tpy"
51019,,SO2,,79.70530998,100,100,,,Y,R,4183311,32655713,,,,"! cdate=12/31/2011: GPBigIslandLLC: Unit is subject to a BART permit limit requiring a wet scrubber by 01/01/2012 and a limit of no more than 219 tpy SO2.: 12/2, 1:57pm email from Doris McLeod (VA DEQ): docketID=3840"
51121,,SO2,,10.89566359,100,100,,,Y,R,5748511,21782713,,,,"! cdate=12/31/2008: VirginiaTech: Voluntary installation of dry lime scrubbing in 2008: 12/2, 1:57pm email from Doris McLeod (VA DEQ): docketID=3840, target=243tpy"
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1727

RONNIE CLARKE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RICHMOND BEHAVIORAL AUTHORITY; CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER; CURRENT HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR; CURRENT 

CHAIRPERSON OF RBHA EXECUTIVE BOARD AND CURRENT BOARD 

MEMBERS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:10-cv-00861-REP)

Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 7, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa H. Leiner, HARMAN, 

CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Clarke appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his claims against Defendants alleging violations of 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 

U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2012). We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm the district court’s order. See Clarke v. Richmond 

Behavioral Auth., No. 3:10-cv-00861-REP (E.D. Va. May 7, 2012). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Ernest Edmond ABBITT, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error

No. A-12092.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 6, 1955.

Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; Clarence Mills, Judge.

Ernest Edmond Abbitt was convicted of the crime of burglary in the second degree, and appeals. Appeal dismissed.

Odes J. Harwood, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

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

POWELL, Judge.

The Attorney General on September 30, 1954, filed herein a motion to dismiss the *247within appeal. This motion was set for oral argument for October 20, 1954; counsel for the plaintiff in error did not appear for argument, and the case was submitted on the record and briefs.

The defendant was charged by information filed in the district court of Oklahoma County with the crime of burglary in the second degree; that he broke into a cleaning plant and took forty pairs of trousers and $5 in pennies. He was arraigned on September 18, 1953, and entered a plea of not guilty, but on November 9, 1953 withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty, and date of sentence was set for November 23, 1953, at which time he was sentenced to serve a two year term in the State Penitentiary at McAlester.

The whole basis for appeal is that accused was surprised by the court not suspending the sentence. No allegation of promise by the court or officials is made. It was simply his thought that because he had not prior to such time been convicted of a felony, and because it is asserted that defendant was intoxicated at the time of the burglary, that defendant counted on such facts to bring about a suspended sentence.

If this matter was properly before us, such proposition could avail defendant nothing, because the matter of suspending or not suspending a sentence rests entirely within the discretion of the trial court. See Tit. 22 O.S.1951 § 991; Martin v. State, 67 Okl.Cr. 390, 94 P.2d 270; Ross v. State, 78 Okl.Cr. 293, 147 P.2d 797; Shannon v. State, 97 Okl.Cr. 18, 256 P.2d 475.

 However that may be, the Attorney General has pointed out that this court under the state of the record, does not have jurisdiction of the within appeal. Such contention must be and is sustained, for the reason that the judgment appealed from was entered on November 23, 1953, and the within appeal was not lodged in this court until June 2, 1954, which was more than six months after the entry of said judgment. The time for appeal commences running from the date of the judgment in a criminal case, and not from the date of the overruling of a motion for new trial. See Tit. 22 O.S.1951 § 1054; Dunn v. State, 18 Okl.Cr. 493, 196 P. 739; Clark v. State, 18 Okl.Cr. 145, 193 P. 1008; Howey v. State, 9 Okl. Cr. 453, 132 P. 499; Brown v. State, 89 Okl.Cr. 389, 208 P.2d 1143; Hooker v. State, 88 Okl.Cr. 203, 201 P.2d 933.

Accordingly, the within appeal is hereby dismissed.

JONES, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.