alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 55 (Monday, March 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 15203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06559]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Certification Notice--232]


Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under 
the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act

AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of Filing.

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

SUMMARY: On March 2, 2015, NTE Ohio, LLC, as owner and operator of a 
new base load electric powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-
certification to the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to Sec.  
201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as 
amended, and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61. FUA and regulations 
thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-
certification in the Federal Register. 42 U.S.C. 8311(d) and 10 CFR 
501.61(c).

ADDRESSES: Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are 
available for public inspection, upon request, in the Office of 
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code OE-20, Room 8G-
024, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Lawrence at (202) 586-
5260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 
et seq.), provides that no new base load electric powerplant may be 
constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another 
alternate fuel as a primary energy source. Pursuant to FUA in order to 
meet the requirement of coal capability, the owner or operator of such 
a facility proposing to use natural gas or petroleum as its primary 
energy source shall certify to the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) 
prior to construction, or prior to operation as a base load electric 
powerplant, that such powerplant has the capability to use coal or 
another alternate fuel. Such certification establishes compliance with 
FUA section 201(a) as of the date it is filed with the Secretary. 42 
U.S.C. 8311.
    The following owner of a proposed new base load electric powerplant 
has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to 
FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 
501.60, 61:
    Owner: NTE Ohio, LLC.
    Capacity: 525 megawatts (MW).
    Plant Location: Cincinnati Dayton Road, Middletown, Ohio.
    In-Service Date: As early as January 2018.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 17, 2015.
Brian Mills,
 Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of Electricity Delivery and 
Energy Reliability.
[FR Doc. 2015-06559 Filed 3-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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, 2014

s0519

Order 

Clerk

May 27, 2014

148037

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148037

COA: 305063

Muskegon CC: 05-052364-FC

HYROSHA RENOD WILSON, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 24, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
1 C OURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

HECTOR ENRIQUE ASTORGA ,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS ,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 2 8 5

- C R

Appeal from the

409 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas (TC# 20100D03164 )

O R D E R The clerk’s record filed in this appeal does not include a certification of the defendant’s right to appeal. Consequently, on December 20, 2016, the Court entered an order for the trial

court to enter a certification of the Appellant’s right to appeal as required by Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Cortez v. State , 420 S.W.3d 803 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013)(when a certification of the right to appeal has not been entered, courts of appeals are

requ ired to order trial court to prepare and file the certification rather than dismiss the appeal). A supplemental record containing the certification was due to be filed in this Court by January 19 , 201 7 . The El Paso County District Clerk has informed the Co urt that the supplemental record

could not be filed because the certification has not been filed. The trial court’s certification of the Appellant’s right to appeal is required in order for this appeal to continue. Further, this Court is required to en sure that the trial courts comply with2

the requirements of Rule 25.2(d). Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, extends the time for filing the certification to February 22, 2017 . Further, we abate the appeal and remand the

cause t o the trial court for preparation and filing of the certification. The trial court is ORDERED to prepare and file a certification of the Appellant’s right to appeal with the El Paso County District Clerk. The certification form is included as Appendix D to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and the form is available on the Eighth Court of Appeals’ website for the convenience of the parties and the trial court. In the event the trial court is unable to obtain the signature of the Appellant on the cert ification, the trial court is directed to prepare and file the certification without the Appellant’s signature. The Court will take steps to ensure that Appellant is informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 23 rd day of January , 20 1 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox , JJ.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-2035

LT Case No. 2021-DR-000790

____________________________

NICHOLAS CHARLES LAURINO,

Appellant,

v.

JULIA MARIANA SIETEMA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County.

Thomas R. Eineman, Judge.

K. Dean Kantaras, of K. Dean Kantaras, P.A., Palm Harbor, for

Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

July 30, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

EDWARDS, C.J., and EISNAUGLE and MacIVER, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
Order entered December 2, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01293-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.J.P., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-30044-2015

ORDER

In this accelerated appeal, the Court has before it appellant Lawrence Richard Parker, 

Jr.’s December 1, 2016 “Unopposed First Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s 

Brief.” Appellant’s brief was due to be filed on December 1, 2016, and he requests a thirty-six 

day extension of time to file his brief.

We GRANT appellant’s motion IN PART. We ORDER appellant to file his brief 

within TWENTY DAYS of the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
# C_2015224EN.01000101.xml

| 9.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7634 — Mitsui / Gestamp / GRI)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 224/01)

On 2 July 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7634. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7634. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
#### Leonard and others vs. Barnum and others.

*Printed Case*— “Brief abstract” *of*evidence.— *Rule*8.

The court refuses to look into the oral testimony contained in the printed case on this appeal, until furnished with a “ brief abstract ” thereof, as required by Rule 8; but defers the decision of the cause for a reasonable time to enable the parties (or one of them, both being appellants) to furnish such abstract.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Kenosha*County.

*602
      *By the Court.*

This action is brought here by cross appeals from different portions of .the same judgment. The.printed case contains over four hundred pages of oral testimony in tbe form of questions and answers, evidently as the same was taken down by the phonographic reporter on the trial. We find no bill of exceptions containing the oral testimony in the record, but have no, doubt the printed case is a literal copy of it. The testimony has been . examined..sufficiently, to satisfy us that were the same properly reduced to a.narrative form, and all immaterial matters omitted, it would not occupy over one hundred pages of the printed case — probably much less than .that number.

After the employment of phonographic .reporters in trials at the circuit court had become common, the practice grew up of printing the bill of exceptions in full, in entire disregard of Rule 8 of this court, which requires only that a *“*brief abstract *”*of the return of the clerk be printed in the case. The result was, that in very many cases the time of the court was unnecessarily .consumed in.listening to, or in reading, a vast mass of testimony, the substance of which could have been stated in a few brief paragraphs. Besides, the expense of printing was made unnecessarily burdensome. The evil became, at length, so intolerable that it was found necessary to insist on the observance of the rule, and our determination to do so was distinctly declared to the profession at the June term, 1871, in the cases, of *Austin v. Bacon,*28 Wis., 416; *Butler v. The Mil. & St. P. R. Co.,*id., 487; and *Karasich v. Hasbrouck,*id., 569. Except in a few cases which were printed before our determination was known to the attorneys who prepared them, the rule has since been well observed, and there has been but little reason for complaint in that behalf,.until now.

But the present case is a plain, palpable violation of the rule, and both parties are responsible for it, for both are appellants. We should be unjust to ourselves, to suitors, and to the profession generally, were we to fail, in the present case, to insist *603upon a compliance witb tbe rule. *We*must therefore decline to look into tbe oral testimony contained in tbe printed case, until we are furnished witb a brief abstract thereof, as tbe rule requires; and we defer tbe decision of these appeals for a reasonable time to enable tbe parties, or one of them, to furnish tbe same. Tbe pleadings, findings, judgment and exhibits need not be reprinted.
#### The State ex rel. Morris, Appellant, *v.*Leonard, Warden, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Morris v. Leonard*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 624.]

(No. 99-937

Submitted August 25, 1999

Decided September 29, 1999.)

*625
      *John E. Moms, pro se.*

*Per Curiam.*

Morris asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas corpus petition. For the following reasons, Morris’s assertion is merit-less.

Morris did not comply with the R.C. 2725.04(D) requirement to attach all of his pertinent commitment papers. *Boyd v. Money*(1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 388, 389, 696 N.E.2d 568, 569. It is apparent that Morris is incarcerated not because of his 1994 sentence, which placed him on probation, but due to a revocation of that probation. Morris did not attach any revocation entry to his petition.

In addition, Morris’s plea of guilty to the charge contained in the information waived any claimed right to an indictment. And habeas corpus is not available to attack the validity or sufficiency of an information because a judgment on an information binds a defendant as long as the trial court has jurisdiction to try the defendant for the crime on which the defendant is convicted and sentenced. *State ex rel. Beaucamp v. Lazaroff*(1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 237, 238, 673 N.E.2d 1273, 1274.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 24.9
 
                               POWER OF ATTORNEY
 
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and
appoints George L. Lippe, Robert E. Sulentic and William P. Leiser the true and
lawful attorney-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for
him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his behalf, as a director or
officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell Crow Company, a Delaware
corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1998, and to sign any or all amendments to such
Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents
in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting
unto said attorney or attorneys-in-fact, each of them with or without the
others, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all
intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorney or attorneys-in-fact or any of them or their
substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
 
                                       /s/ Henry J. Faison
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                           Henry J. Faison
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of A.L.L.I., a child, * From the 318th District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. FM 59907.

No. 11-16-00142-CV * November 30, 2016

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 18, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00138

- CV

SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM , an Agency of the City of San Antonio ("SAWS"), Appellant

v.

MATIRAAN, LTD ., and Marylyn House,

Appellees

From the 131st Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020

- CI

- 08486

Honorable Laura Salinas , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The reporter’s record was originally due March 14, 2022, but was not filed. On March 17, 2022, the court reporter filed a notification of late record, requesting an extension un til April 18, 2022 to file the record. After consideration, we GRANT the request and ORDER the court reporter to file the record by April 18, 2022

.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 18th day of March, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.1.
                  Certification of Principal Executive Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, Ed Bailey, Chief Executive Officer of LightTouch Vein & Laser, Inc. (the
"Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
period March 31, 2007 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

By: /s/ Ed Bailey
-------------------------------
Ed Bailey
Chief Executive Officer

November 2, 2007

 * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to LightTouch Vein & Laser, Inc. and will be retained by LightTouch
Vein & Laser, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
HAKEEM BYRD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5071

________________________/

Opinion filed November 23, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James O. Shelfer, Judge.

Hakeem Byrd, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Angela R. Hensel, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
Document

Exhibit 10.1
Executed Version

Certain identified information marked with “[***]” has been omitted from this document because it is both (i) not material and (ii) the type that the registrant treats as private or confidential.
AMENDMENT No. 9 TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT COM0270-15
This Amendment No. 9 COM0997-19 (the "Amendment No. 9"), dated as of August 28th, 2020 (“Amendment No. 9”) is between Embraer S.A. (“Embraer”) and Aircastle Holding Corporation Limited (“Buyer”) collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”, and constitutes an amendment and modification to Purchase Agreement COM0270-15 dated June 12th, 2015 as amended from time to time (the "Purchase Agreement").
All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning when used herein as provided in the Purchase Agreement and in case of any conflict between this Amendment No. 9 and the Purchase Agreement, this Amendment No. 9 shall control.
WHEREAS, [***].
WHEREAS, [***].
WHEREAS, [***];
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration which is hereby acknowledged, Embraer and Buyer hereby agree as follows:
1. [***].
2. [***].
3. [***].
4. REINSTATEMENT OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT
All other provisions and conditions of the referenced Purchase Agreement, as well as its related Attachments, which are not specifically modified by this Amendment No. 9 shall remain in full force and effect without any change.
5. COUNTERPARTS
This Amendment No. 9 may be signed by the parties hereto in any number of separate counterparts with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument and all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


This Amendment No. 9 may be signed by facsimile with originals duly signed to follow by an internationally recognized courier.


[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK – SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]









Exhibit 10.1
Executed Version









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, EMBRAER and BUYER, by their duly authorized officers, have entered into and executed this Amendment No. 9 to be effective as of the date first written above.


									
	EMBRAER S.A.	AIRCASTLE HOLDING CORPORATION LIMITED

	



By           /s/ Simon Henry Newitt
Name:   Simon Henry Newitt
Title:      VP Contracts


	



By          /s/ Stephen Quinn
Name:   Stephen Quinn
Title:      Director

	



By           /s/ Fabiana Klajner Leschziner
Name:   Fabiana Klajner Leschziner
Title:      EVP and General Counsel




	
	Place:   São José dos Campos - SP
             Brazil	Place:   Stamford, CT
Memo to Docket

Presentation to the Mobile Sources Technical Review Subc ommittee of the Clean Air Act Advisory

Committee

October 5, 2010

EPA National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Lab oratory

2000 Traverwood

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Three presentations (attached) were given on the Fuel Economy Labeling Proposal, by:

Lisa Snapp (US EPA)

Luke Tonachel (NRDC)

Bob Holycross (Ford)

A few clarifying questions were asked.
# Br ake Energy/Tra ction W ork W eigh te d Using Pr oposed W eigh ting for A t o B

Certific at ion

Engine Ra te d Po we r Br ak e Energy/ Po sitiv e Br ak e

Energy/ Po sitiv e Dis ta nce

Based Pr e
- tr ans

Dis ta nce Based Cummins

Br aking Energy/eFT P Po sitiv e Po we r (kW) Po sitiv e

Wo rk Po sitiv e

Wo rk We igh te d Based

We igh ting Based

We igh ting P Po sitiv e

Engine Wo rk
339 0.52 0.39 0.48 0.46 0.49 201 0.49 0.36 0.30 0.28 0.35 149 0.42 0.32 0.21 0.19 0.22
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed November 30, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-16-00103-CR

MIKEY ALBERT LOPEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-54865-R

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Brown, and Whitehill

Opinion by Justice Lang

Mikey Albert Lopez waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a 

deadly weapon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). After finding appellant 

guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years’ imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s 

attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. 

The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief 

presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable 

grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 

1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to 

file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 
–2–

319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders

cases).

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree 

the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably 

support the appeal.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/Douglas S. Lang/

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

160103F.U05
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MIKEY ALBERT LOPEZ, Appellant

No. 05-16-00103-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-54865-R.

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Justices 

Brown and Whitehill participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 30th day of November, 2016.