alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WISCONSIN DISTRIBUTOR GROUP, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 92-1588.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

April 1, 1994.

Before EDWARDS, BUCKLEY, and GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GINSBURG'.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

GINSBURG, Circuit Judge:

The court summarily denied this petition for review on January 25, 1994 on the basis of our recent decision in *Elizabethtown Gas Co. v. FERC,*10 F.3d 866 (D.C.Cir.1993). The petitioner now seeks rehearing, arguing that “the question in *Elizabethtown*was which customers could be lawfully allocated certain costs, whereas the question in this case is whether any above-market Dakota costs are lawful for ANR to pass on at all.”

The petitioners in *Elizabethtown*argued that the Commission in that case had made an impermissible “departure from the prinei-*683pie that customers should pay rates based only upon the costs they cause the pipeline to incur.” In our decision, we noted that we had held in *K N Energy, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,*968 F.2d 1295, 1800-02 (D.C.Cir.1992), that “cost-spreading and value-of-service considerations could justify a volumetric surcharge that could not be justified as a matter of [cost] causation.” *Elizabethtown,*10 F.3d at 873-74. We thus held that the “surcharge in the present case is lawful,” saying that:

> As the Commission noted, had the Great Plains- plant succeeded in increasing the supply of natural gas, it would have contributed also to reducing the price of natural gas, to the benefit of all natural gas customers.... [The pipeline’s] customers would have benefited because they are by definition purchasers of natural gas— whether from [this pipeline] or from another supplier. Accordingly, we uphold as reasonable the volumetric surcharge included in the Restructuring Settlement.

*Id.*at 874. It is therefore abundantly clear that our holding in *Elizabethtown*was not directed to the question which customers must bear the disputed costs; rather, we held that the Commission may permit a pipeline company that is obligated to purchase gas from the Dakota gassification project at above-market prices to pass that cost on to its customers. Contrary to the claim of the present petitioner (quoting *Webster v. Fall,*266 U.S. 507, 511, 45 S.Ct. 148, 149, 69 L.Ed. 411 (1925)), that question did not ‘“merely lurk in the record, neither brought to the attention of the court nor ruled upon.’”

Petitioner concedes that the sole issue in this case is whether the Commission is empowered to “authoriz[e] ANR ... to recover from its customers, *in any form,*the above-market costs associated with ANR’s contract to purchase synthetic coal gas from Dakota” (emphasis in original). *Elizabethtown*clearly resolves this precise question in favor of the Commission and is therefore controlling precedent in the present case. The "petition for rehearing is therefore

*Denied.*
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-10810

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Gregory Antonio Hartfield, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:21-CR-241-1

______________________________

Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Gregory Antonio Hartfield has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Hartfield has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 6, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10810 Document: 00516704269 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2023
No. 22-10810

2

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-10810 Document: 00516704269 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2023
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: ORDER AMENDING RULE 237.3 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE : : : : : : : NO. 648 CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES DOCKET

**ORDER**
**PER CURIA M**  **AN D**  **NOW**, this 4th day of October, 2016 , upon the recommendation of the Civil Procedural Rules Committee ; the proposal having been published for public comment at 46 Pa.B. 982 (February 27, 2016): **IT IS**  **ORDERED** pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that Rule 237.3 is amended in the attached form. This **ORDER** shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective January 1, 2017

.
Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined. Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
Exhibit 99.1**AMDL Announces Closing of Private Offering**TUSTIN, Calif. December 24, 2007 — AMDL, Inc. (AMEX: ADL), developer and marketer of testsfor the early detection of cancer and other serious diseases, announced today that it has conductedthe closing of its combined Regulation D/Regulation S private unit offering of 2,007,508 shares ofcommon stock and warrants to purchase 1,003,755 shares of common stock, generating net proceeds ofapproximately $5,433,000. The shares of AMDL common stock were sold at $3.09 per share and the fouryear warrants included in the unties are exercisable at $4.74 per share. Warrants to purchase anadditional 200,751 shares were issued to AMDL’s placement agents at the same exercise price. AMDLagreed to file a registration statement within 60 days of the closing to register the resale of theshares of common stock and the shares issuable on exercise of the warrants included in the unitsand the placement agent warrants. Spencer Clarke, LLC, a FINRA member broker dealer, acted asAMDL’s principal placement agent for sales in the United States, and Galileo Asset Management,S.A., a member of the Association Romande des Intermediaries Financier, acted as AMDL’s placementagent for sales outside of the United States.Gary L. Dreher, President of AMDL, said: “The reception to the offering was gratifying under thecurrent economic climate. These funds provide some of the additional working capital we need toexpand Jade Pharmaceutical Inc.’s new business opportunities and product development efforts inChina and for our other general working capital needs.”*****About AMDL**AMDL, Inc., headquartered in Tustin, California, with operations in Shenzhen, Jaingxi andJilin China through its wholly owned subsidiary Jade Pharmaceutical Inc., is an internationalbiopharma company. AMDL together with Jade engages in the development, manufacture and marketing ofproprietary pharmaceutical and testing products. More information about AMDL and its products canbe obtained at www.amdl.com.***Forward-Looking Statements