alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SIERRA CLUB, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. Michael DOMBECK, in his capacity as Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, et al., Defendant, and Canyon Forest Village II Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Nos. 01-17391, 01-17394.

D.C. No. CV-00-00421-PGR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 4, 2002.

Decided Dec. 27, 2002.

Before RYMER, THOMAS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM*

The District Court for the District of Arizona granted summary judgment to the *412Sierra Club on Counts I through VII of its complaint, and dismissed the eighth count on ripeness grounds. Canyon Forest Village II Corporation (CFV), a defendant-intervenor, appeals the judgment on some of these claims. The Sierra Club cross-appeals the district court’s dismissal of Count VIII. Because the facts are familiar to both parties, we will not recite them in detail except as necessary.

This Court does not have jurisdiction to decide CFV’s appeal because CFV lacks standing on appeal. The Forest Service did not appeal the District Court’s order. Therefore, CFV, as an intervenor, may appeal in the absence of the Forest Service only if it independently satisfies the standing requirements of Article III. *Didrickson v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior,*982 F.2d 1332, 1337-38 (9th Cir.1992). CFV fails to meet Article Ill’s redressability requirement because it is speculative whether a favorable appellate decision would redress its injury. Even if CFV were to prevail on each of its arguments, the Forest Service must undertake a number of additional tasks, including conducting further environmental analyses regarding Alternative H’s water delivery system, its use of groundwater during the construction, and its use of groundwater during emergencies, and obtaining a zoning change for its 272 acres in Coconino County, before the land exchange might ever be completed. In addition, the Forest Service has effectively acquiesced in the district court’s determination that other work must also be done before a new ROD is issued. CFV cannot compel it to do otherwise. In these circumstances, we conclude that CFV lacks standing to pursue this appeal. *See Diamond v. Charles,*476 U.S. 54, 106 S.Ct. 1697, 90 L.Ed.2d 48 (1986); *Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,*504 U.S. 555, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).

As for Sierra Club’s cross-appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide it because it is moot in light of the fact that the Forest Service has decided to perform additional environmental analysis consistent with an order issued by the District Court for the District of Columbia and to reevaluate the proposed land exchange in light of that analysis. As a result, the environmental impact statement will be supplemented and a revised record of decision will be issued by the Forest Service.

DISMISSED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts *412of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appendix H.5 

Georgia BART Eligible Sources 
GA BART Eligible Sources by Emissions...................................................3 

GA BART Eligible Source by Q/d.............................................................4
<PAGE>


                                                                 EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of AirNet Systems, Inc. of our report dated February 17, 1999, included in the
1998 Annual Report to Shareholders of AirNet Systems, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of AirNet Systems,
Inc. listed in Item 14(a)(2) and 14(d). This schedule is the responsibility of
the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on
our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-08189 and No. 333-62659) pertaining to the AirNet Systems,
Inc. Amended and Restated 1996 Incentive Stock Plan and the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-43605) pertaining to the AirNet Systems, Inc.
Retirement Savings Plan of our report dated February 17, 1999, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements incorporated herein by reference, and our
report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial
statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of AirNet Systems,
Inc.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
---------------------

Columbus, Ohio
March 29, 1999


                                       1
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 13 (Friday, January 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3676-3677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01010]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


Solicitation for Public Comments on Questions From the Task Force 
on Maternal Mental Health; Correction

AGENCY: Office on Women's Health, Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Health, Office of the Secretary; Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration (SAMHSA), U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS)

ACTION: Notice of correction for request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 
published a document in the Federal Register of January 9, 2024, 
announcing the solicitation for public comments on questions from the 
Task Force on Maternal Health. The document

[[Page 3677]]

contained incorrect date in the DATES section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie Kolick, Designated Federal 
Officer, Advisory Committee for Women's Services, U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Suite 18E01, Rockville, MD 20857. 
Phone: 240-276-1738 or Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#691f08050c1b000c47020605000a02291a0804011a084701011a470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a0d6c1ccc5d2c9c58ecbcfccc9c3cbe0d3c1cdc8d3c18ec8c8d38ec7cfd6">[email protected]</span></a>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Correction, from FR Doc. 2023-28890, Vol.89, 
No.6, pages 1110 and 1111.
    In the Federal Register of January 9, 2024, in FR Doc. 2023-28890, 
on page 1110, in the second column, correct the DATES caption to read:

DATES: Electronic or written/paper comments will be accepted through 
midnight eastern standard time (EST), Thursday, February 8, 2024.

    Dated: January 16, 2024.
Carlos Castillo,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-01010 Filed 1-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.55



                                AMENDMENT NO. 1

                                       TO

                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


          This Amendment No. 1 to the Employment Agreement dated as of November
4, 1996 (the "Employment Agreement") is made and entered into as of the _ day
of February _, 1997 among A I M Management Group Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), INVESCO PLC, a public company incorporated under the laws of
England, to be known as AMVESCO PLC following the business combination
described in the Employment Agreement ("AMVESCO") , and Scott G. Lucas, a
resident of Texas ("Global Partner").

          WHEREAS, the Company, AMVESCO and Global Partner entered into the
Employment Agreement; and

          WHEREAS, the Company, AMVESCO and Global Partner now desire to amend
the Employment Agreement in certain respects.

          NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements set forth herein and in the Employment Agreement and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:

          19.     Section 4(g) of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to
read in full as follows:

          (g)  Except as specifically provided in Section 4(e)(ii) hereof, this 
          Agreement does not pertain to or modify any option plan or option 
          agreement.


          20.  Except as set forth herein, all provisions of the Employment
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

          21.  This Amendment No. 1 may be executed in two or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and which
together shall constitute one and the same agreement.
<PAGE>   2
          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment
No. 1 to be executed under seal as of the day and year first above written.

                                    A I M Management Group Inc.


                                    By:/s/ ROBERT H. GRAHAM      
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                    Title: President



                                    INVESCO PLC


                                    By: /s/ ROBERT F. McCULLOUGH                
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                    Title:  CFO                           
                                       ----------------------------------------



                                    Global Partner

                                    /s/ SCOTT G. LUCAS         
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Scott G. Lucas





                                       2
|   | 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/      Patricia J. Brown   |   |   |   |   |
| Patricia      J. Brown       |   |   |   |   |
| Chief      Financial Officer |   |   |   |   |

----
Exhibit
32.1





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 Quarterly Report of Landmark Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick
L. Alexander, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Patrick L.
    AlexanderPatrick
      L. AlexanderChief
      Executive OfficerNovember
      12, 2009
**View History :**  

### Daily We ekly Monthly Annual Download Data (XLS File)

Created with Highcharts 3.0.1Henry Hub Natural Gas Spot PriceHenry Hub Natural Gas Spot Price



### Henry Hub Natural Gas Spot Price (Dollars per Million Btu) **Decade Year**  **- 0**  **Year -**  **1 Year**  **- 2**  **Year -** **3 Year** **- 4**  **Year -**  **5 Year** **- 6**  **Year -**  **7 Year**  **- 8**  **Year -** **9** 

### 1990's 2.49 2.09 2.27 **2000's** 4.31 3.96 3.38 5.47 5.89 8.69 6.73 6.97 8.86 3.94 **2010's** 4.37 4.00 2.75 3.73

- = No Data Reported;

-- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 6/4/2014 Next Release Date: 6/11/2014
#### Irvin J. PERRY, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12037.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 17, 1954.

*942Hughes, Ogden & Ogden, Guymon, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

; Irvin J. Perry was charged by information filed in the county court of Texas County with unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, was tried before a jury and convicted, but being unable to agree upon the punishment to be assessed, left that to the court, who assessed the penalty at 60 days confinement in the county jail, and a fine of $100. Appeal has been duly perfected to this court.

The State by its first witness, Dudley Smith, City Marshal of Hooker, developed that such officer and deputy sheriff H. L. Davis, under authority o-f a search warrant searched the residence of the defendant at the edge of Hooker, and found 16 pints of mix brands, tax paid whiskey. Also about one-fourth pint of whiskey.

The State offered in evidence the search warrant that authorized the search, and the trial court, over the objections of counsel for the defendant ad-, mitted the same in evidence. This constituted error. The State had a good case, but by inattention to the uniform holdings of this court from its beginning,' brought about fundamental error that requires the reversal of the conviction. We shall not go into a dissertation of the reason why this is so, but shall refer to a few. cases that may be consulted where this mat-, ter has been previously treated. Wiese v. State, 32 Okl.Cr. 203, 240 P. 1075; Lucas v. State, 56 Okl.Cr. 413, 41 P.2d 131;, Wallace v. State, 89 Okl.Cr. 365, 208 P.2d 190; Savalier v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 87, 185 P.2d 476; Robbins v. State, 93 Okl.Cr. 363, 228 P.2d 663; Wagner v. State, 68 Okl.Cr. 447, 99 P.2d 161; Edwards *v.*State, 90 Okl.Cr. 211, 212 P.2d 150; Berg *v.*State, Okl.Cr., 262 P.2d 913, 915.

The defendant did not testify and his, character was not placed in issue. The: recitals in the search warrant were as to , the essence of the offense charged.

It goes without saying that no mat- ' ter how guilty an accused may be, he is entitled to a fair trial. And as we pointed ' out in Berg v. State, supra:

> “In an early case this court said that a person accused of crime is entitled to a fair and impartial trial, conducted • according to the established principles of law, the most important of which is that the verdict of the jury shall be founded only upon competent evidence. If a defendant cannot be fairly convicted, he should not be convicted .at all, and to hold otherwise would be to provide ways and means for the conviction of the innocent.”

The’case is reversed and remanded.

JOiNES and BRETT, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Helene Donna ALPERT, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl Henry ALPERT, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 91-8957, 91-9034.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 13, 1993.

Alan J. Baverman, Atlanta, GA, for defendant-appellant.

Martin J. Weinstein, Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, GA, for plaintiff-appellee in No. 91-8957.

Donald F. Samuel, Garland & Samuel, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for defendant-appellant.

Martin James Weinstein, Asst. U.S. Atty., Joe D. Whitley, U.S. Atty., Atlanta, GA, for plaintiff-appellee in No. 91-9034.

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, and FAY, KRAVITCH, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

BY THE COURT:

A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on whether this ease should be reheard by the Court sitting en banc, and a majority of the judges of this Court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc. The previous panel’s opinion is hereby VACATED.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

NITEKA MONIQUE BUIE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2023-2100

May 22, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Laura E. Ward,

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Matthew J. Salvia, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SLEET, C.J., and ATKINSON and SMITH, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135994 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135994 

 COA: 273167 

Huron CC: 05-004443-FH 

KENNETH MICHAEL ADKINS,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 15, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0519 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 27, 2008 

 Clerk
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY )

COMPANY, )

)

 Appellant, )

 )

v. ) Case No. 2D18-2287

)

CLEMENTE ARIAS, AMARILYS ARIAS, )

ANGELIQUE FLORES, AND MARY ANNA )

PORTER, )

 )

Appellees. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed October 11, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Elizabeth G. Rice, 

Judge.

Kansas E. Gooden and Kristen M. Van 

Der Linde of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A.,

Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Kathryn E. Lee and Kevin Britt Woods

of Woods Trial Law, Tampa, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Macedo, 228 So. 3d 1111 (Fla. 

2017).
- 2 -

CASANUEVA, LUCAS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1507

AN ACT

To provide for the extension of the Parole Commission to

oversee cases of prisoners sentenced under prior law,

to reduce the size of the Parole Commission, 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,
2

S 1507 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Parole Commission

3 Phaseout Act of 1995’’.

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PAROLE COMMISSION.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of section 235(b)(1)

6 of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (98 Stat. 2032)

7 as it related to chapter 311 of title 18, United States

8 Code, and the Parole Commission, each reference in such

9 section to ‘‘ten years’’ or ‘‘ten-year period’’ shall be

10 deemed to be a reference to ‘‘fifteen years’’ or ‘‘fifteen11 year period’’, respectively.

12 (b) POWERS AND DUTIES OF PAROLE COMMIS13 SION.—Notwithstanding section 4203 of title 18, United

14 States Code, the United States Parole Commission may

15 perform its functions with any quorum of Commissioners,

16 or Commissioner, as the Commission may prescribe by

17 regulation.

18 SEC. 3. REPEAL.

19 Section 235(b)(2) of the Sentencing Reform Act of

20 1984 (98 Stat. 2032) is repealed.

Passed the Senate December 22, 1995.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1507

AN ACT

To provide for the extension of the Parole CommisCommission, and for other purposes. under prior law, to reduce the size of the Parole sion to oversee cases of prisoners sentenced
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 333-12121, 333-12105, and 333-12103) pertaining to the 1992 Stock
Option Plan, 1996 Director Option Plan, and 1996 Employee Stock Option Plan of
Diatide, Inc. of our report dated February 5, 1997, with respect to the
financial statements of Diatide, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1996.

                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Manchester, New Hampshire
March 25, 1997
May 10, 2010

NOTE TO THE DOCKET:

On November 25, 2009, EPA staff particip ated on a conference call with the California Air Resources Board, whic h involved a general discussion and questions/answers about the tailoring rule proposal.

Participant from EPA : Michael Ling, Associate Director, Air Quality Policy Division

Participants from CARB : Brian Turner, Assistant Executive Officer, Federal Climate Policy Edie Chang, Chief, Program Planning & Management Branch, Office of Climate Change Barbara Fry, Chief, Measures Assessment Branch, Stationary Source Division Mike Tollstrup, Chief, Project Assess ment Branch, Stationary Source Division Jon Costantino, Manager, Climate Change Planning Section, Program Planning & Management Branch, Office of Climate Change Aron Livingston, Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs Chris Gallenstein, Staff Air Pollution Specialist, Stationary Source Division Jennifer Gray, Air Pollution Special ist, Office of Climate Change