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

OFTEXAS 

August 15, 1957 

Hon. J. M. Falkner, Commissioner opinion No. w-228 

Department of Banking 

Capital National Bank Building Re: Does Article 881a-4, Vernon's 

Austin, Texas R.C.S., 1948, mean that the 

certificate of authority to 

do business should be issued 

simultaneously with the approval of the charter and byDear Mr. Falkner: laws? 

You have stated and asked the following: 

"Article 881a-4, Vernon's R.C.S., 1948, reads as follows: 

"'When the Banking Commissioner of Texas shall have 

approved the organization certificate and the propcsed bylaws and shall, have issued the certificate of such approval 

and filing, it shall then issue a certificate of authority 

to do business. O O1 

"Does this Article in your opinion mean that the certificate of authority to do business should be i,ssued simultaneously with the approval of the charter and by-laws?" 

The approval of the charter and by-laws by t$he Commission i,s 

made a condition precedent to the issuance of the certificate of authori,- 

ty. The issuance of the certificate of authority must n,ecessarily follow 

the approval of the charter and by-laws. The Banking Commissioner must 

issue the certificate of auttority as soon as practicable after he has 

approved the charter and by-laws. The incorporators of a building and 

loan association, after the Commissioner has approved the charter and 

the by-laws, thereupon have the right to require the Banking Commissloner to issue the certificate of authority. 

You are therefore accordingly advised tkiat the certi,fi.cate of 

authority tc do business bleed nilt be itswrl "si,nu,-;a;~c~ci,~sly" with. the 

approval of the charter and by-l~aws, but should be isw~ed as soon, as 

practfcable thereafter, 
Hon. J. M. Falkner, page 2 (w-228) 

SUMMARY 

The Banking Commissioner is not required 

to issue the certificate of authority to 

do business of a building and loan association simultaneously with the approval 

of the charter and by-laws but must do so 

as soon as practicable thereafter. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WIISON 

Attorney General of Texas 

By %-dt3.~&&.- 

Fred B. Werkenthin 

Assistant 

FBW:lm 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE: 

H. Grady Chandler, Chairman 

J. W. Wheeler 

Leonard Passmore 

J. Mark Mcbughlin 

K5XIFdWF.D FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: 

Ceo. P. Blackburn
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 199 (Friday, October 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 60945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26399]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2444]


Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in 
Rulemaking Proceedings

October 10, 2000.
    Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification have been filed in 
the Commission's rulemaking proceedings listed in this Public Notice 
and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of 
this document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-A257, 445 
12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to 
these petitions must be filed by October 30, 2000. See section 
1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an 
opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing 
oppositions have expired.
    Subject: Amendment of Section 73.202(b) of the Commission's Rules 
FM Broadcast Station Johannesburg and Edwards, California (MM Docket 
No. 99-239).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.
    Subject: Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules--Competitive 
Bidding Procedures (WT Docket No. 97-82).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 5.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-26399 Filed 10-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
** **

**Exhibit 32**

 

**NORTHERN GROWERS, LLC**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

The undersigned,Robert Narem, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer ofNorthern Growers, LLC (the “Company”), has executed this Certification inconnection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of theCompany’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2007 (the “Report”).

 

The undersignedhereby certifies that:

 
| · | the Report fully  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                 |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                   |
| · | the information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the  financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 

IN WITNESSWHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certification as of the 5th day ofMarch, 2008.

 

 

 
|   | /s/  Robert Narem                            |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | Robert Narem                                 |
|   | Chief Executive Officer  and Chief Financial |
|   | Officer                                      |

 

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                               
<ARTICLE>                                           5
<LEGEND>                                       
    TRANSMITTING STV GROUP'S FISCAL 1999 FIRST QUARTER 10Q.
</LEGEND>                                      
<CIK> 0000095045                               
<NAME> STV GROUP, INC                          
                                                     
<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                              DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                      3,985,000
<SECURITIES>                                                   15,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                              24,816,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  450,000
<INVENTORY>                                                14,046,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           43,004,000
<PP&E>                                                      8,384,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                              6,805,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             47,313,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      29,615,000
<BONDS>                                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                    2,025,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                 12,359,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               47,313,000
<SALES>                                                    34,221,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           34,221,000
<CGS>                                                      19,402,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              21,150,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             74,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             1,708,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  796,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           912,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  912,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0.22
        
 

</TABLE>
---

Exhibit 8.1


LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES: The following companies are subsidiaries of Nevada Geothermal Power Inc. as of December 7, 2011: NAME OF SUBSIDIARY

   JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION

   OWNERSHIPBlue Mountain Power Company Inc.

   British Columbia

   100%Desert Valley Gold Co.

   Nevada

   100%NGP Chile S.A.

   Chile

   100%Nevada Geothermal Power US Holdings Inc.

   Nevada

   100%Nevada Geothermal Power Company

   Nevada

   100%Nevada Geothermal Operating Company LLC

   Delaware

   100%Nevada Geothermal Power Holding Company LLC

   Delaware

   100%NGP Blue Mountain Holdco LLC

   Delaware

   100%NGP Blue Mountain I LLC

   Delaware

   100%NGP Blue Mountain Holdco II LLC

   Delaware

   100%NGP Blue Mountain Holdco III LLC

   Delaware

   100%NGP Blue Mountain Holdco IV LLC

   Delaware

   100%NGP Blue Mountain II LLC

   Delaware

   100%NGP Blue Mountain III LLC

   Delaware

   100%NGP Blue Mountain IV LLC

   Delaware

   100%NGP North Valley Inc (formerly NGP (Black Warrior I))

   Nevada

   100%NGP (Crump I)

   Nevada

   100%NGP (Pumpernickel I)

   Nevada

   100%Nevada Geothermal Power East Brawley LLC

   Delaware

   100%Nevada Geothermal Power South Brawley LLC

   Delaware

   100%NGP Truckhaven LLC

   Delaware

   100%Joint venture:Crump Geothermal Company LLC

   Delaware

  50%


---
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 20-10182 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Rodolfo A. Cuellar, Jr., 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:94-CR-62-1 

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Rodolfo A. Cuellar, Jr., federal prisoner # 25755-077, was found guilty 

of conspiring to distribute cocaine, using a communication facility to 

facilitate drug trafficking, possessing heroin with intent to distribute, and 

employing a person under 18 years of age in the distribution of cocaine and 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

August 16, 2021 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 20-10182 Document: 00515980222 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2021
No. 20-10182 

2 

heroin. He is serving 40 years in prison. Cuellar moved for a sentence 

reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act. The district court denied 

Cuellar’s motion because he had not been convicted of an offense to which 

Section 404 applies. Cuellar has appealed. 

Generally, we review a district court’s discretionary denial of relief 

under Section 404 of the First Step Act for an abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Jackson, 945 F.3d 315, 320 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 

2699 (2020). Because the denial in this case turns on the meaning of a federal 

statute, we apply de novo review. Id. The record and Cuellar’s motion 

reflect that he had not been convicted of any offense that was the “violation 

of a Federal criminal statute, the statutory penalties for which were modified 

by section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.” First Step Act, 

§ 404(a), Pub. L. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018); see also Dorsey v. 

United States, 567 U.S. 260, 269 (2012). Accordingly, the district court did 

not err in denying Cuellar’s motion for a sentence reduction under the First 

Step Act. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The 

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. The 

Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 

DENIED as unnecessary. Cuellar’s motion for the appointment of counsel 

is DENIED. 

Case: 20-10182 Document: 00515980222 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2021
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 07/28 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 28 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
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.                  

###### State Justice Institute

# DATE: 

Friday, November 10, 2000, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.

# PLACE: 

La Costa Hotel, Carlsbad, CA.

# Matters to be Considered: 

Consideration of proposals submitted for Institute funding and internal Institute business.

# Portions Open to the Public: 

Consideration of proposals submitted for Institute funding.

# Portions Closed to the Public: 

Discussion of internal personnel matters.

# Contact Person: 

David Tevelin, Executive Director, State Justice Institute, 1650 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria, VA 22314, (703) 684-6100.

David I. Tevelin,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 00-26735  Filed 10-13-00; 2:48 pm]

BILLING CODE 6820-SC-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SCOTT ROBERT SCHAEFFER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 630 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of May, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### ALLEN v. STATE.

No. 23708.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 25, 1947.

L. H. Welch, of Breckenridge, for appellants.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

The record is before us without any statement of facts or bills of exception. The indictment appears regular and charges Jack Allen and C. E. Wampler with robbery by assault. A verdict of guilt was found in each instance and a penalty of five years in the penitentiary was assessed against both appellants.

C. E. Wampler has heretofore filed his affidavit requesting that he be allowed the privilege of withdrawing his appeal, which request was granted and his appeal was dismissed by this court on May 21, 1947.

There appears attached to Jack Allen’s brief herein copies of certain orders of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas, evidencing the fact that appellant was placed on.a three years’ probation sentence by such court on March 11, 1947, the robbery by assault herein complained of having taken place in September, 1946, and this present trial had in the District Court of Howard County, Texas, on December 11, 1946. These copies of orders and judgments, as well as the subject of appellant being under a plea of guilt to such court, are not shown by this record to have been mentioned nor called to the attention of the District Court of Howard County, and the record herein makes no mention thereof. Therefore, we cannot take notice of such ex parte matters outside of the record and presented to us only as exhibits attached to a brief filed in this court.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

663 

TP 16-00052 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND CARNI, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF ANGELA BRIGGS, PETITIONER, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES, RESPONDENT. 

 

CREIGHTON, JOHNSEN & GIROUX, BUFFALO (JONATHAN G. JOHNSEN OF COUNSEL),

FOR PETITIONER. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (ANDREW B. AYERS OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County [John J. Ark,

J.], entered December 8, 2015) to review a determination of

respondent. The determination revoked petitioner’s family daycare

registration. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously

confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. 

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding

seeking to annul respondent’s determination revoking her registration

to operate a family daycare home. Substantial evidence supports the

determination that petitioner violated regulations requiring her to

provide adequate supervision to the children in her care and

prohibiting her from separating a child from the other children for a

period that was longer than necessary (see generally Matter of Liddell

v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 117 AD3d 742, 742-

743; Matter of Gates of Goodness & Mercy v Johnson, 49 AD3d 1295,

1295). The evidence at the fair hearing established that petitioner

isolated a six-year-old child outside the home in an area where she

could not be supervised for an extended period of time. 

We reject petitioner’s further contention that the penalty is so

disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of

fairness. Contrary to her contention, petitioner was not confronted

by unanticipated circumstances, not of her own making, to which she

responded appropriately (cf. Matter of Lewis v New York State Off. of

Children & Family Servs., 114 AD3d 1065, 1066-1068; Matter of Grady v

New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 39 AD3d 1157, 1158-

1159). Rather, petitioner created the circumstances that exposed the
-2- 663 

TP 16-00052 

child to a significant risk of harm, and the revocation of her

registration is not disproportionate to the offense (see Matter of

Sindone-Thompson v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.

Bur. of Early Childhood Servs., 296 AD2d 776, 777-778). 

Entered: September 30, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Request for Information Avery International Solutions, LLC (FAA-2015-3428) 

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

Dear Mr. Avery: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. 

FAA−2015−3428). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition.

 Describe the aircraft makes, models, and types (i.e., - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the proposed 

UAS operation. The descriptions should include the maximum weight (including payload). This information 

can be located in the aircraft manuals.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your 

information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary 

information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by December 1, 

2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999 .

 

FAA Office of Rulemaking 

Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 10:04 AM 

To: havery@averyinternationalsolutions.com
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2789 

To delay enrollment in qualified health plans in State or Federally facilitated 

Exchanges until 1 year after final rules are published establishing the 

verification and other procedures to be used to implement section 1411 

of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and carrying out 

sections 6055 and 6056 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 23, 2013 

Mrs. ELLMERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To delay enrollment in qualified health plans in State or 

Federally facilitated Exchanges until 1 year after final 

rules are published establishing the verification and other 

procedures to be used to implement section 1411 of 

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and carrying out sections 6055 and 6056 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2789 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘DEFECT Act (Delay3 ing Enrollment in Federal Exchanges to Certify Trust) 

4 of 2013’’. 

5 SEC. 2. DELAY ENROLLMENT IN QUALIFIED HEALTH PLANS 

6 IN STATE OR FEDERALLY FACILITATED EX7 CHANGES UNTIL 1 YEAR AFTER PUBLICA8 TION OF RULES ESTABLISHING VERIFICA9 TION AND OTHER EXCHANGE PROCEDURES 

10 AND CARRYING OUT COVERAGE REPORTING 

11 REQUIREMENTS. 

12 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no indi13 vidual may be enrolled in a qualified health plan offered 

14 through an Exchange under section 1311 or 1321 of the 

15 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 

16 18031, 18041) until 1 year after the date that there is 

17 published in the Federal Register— 

18 (1) a final rule that establishes the verification 

19 and other procedures to be used to implement sec20 tion 1411 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 18081); and 

21 (2) a final rule to carry out sections 6055 and 

22 6056 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00274

- CV

B ILLY D ON & S TEPHANIE C OUCH AND

C ARLO & G IOVANNA R ESTREPO

, Appellants and Appe llees

V

.

J UAN C ARLOS A VILA A GUILAR

, Appe llee and Appellant §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 348th District

Court

of Tarrant County ( 348

- 309669

- 19 )

August 12, 2021

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judg ment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Billy Don & Stephanie Couch and Carlo & Giovanna

Restrepo shall pay all of the costs of this appeal, for which let execution i ssue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

Justice Wade Birdwell
#### Alice MILLIMAN v. STATE (7 cases).

Nos. 25296-25302.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 16, 1951.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for a violation of the liquor law in Smith County. The penalty assessed is a fine of $100.

Upon the written motion of the appellant, duly verified, the appeal is dismissed.