alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8008]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02954]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2879-012]


Green Mountain Power; Notice of Meeting

    a. Project Name and Number: Bolton Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 
2879-012.
    b. Applicant: Green Mountain Power (GMP).
    c. Date and Time of Meeting: February 23, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. EST.
    d. FERC Contact: Michael Tust, (202) 502-6522, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#016c68626960646d2f7574727541676473622f666e77"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0c61656f646d69602278797f784c6a697e6f226b637a">[email protected]</span></a>.
    e. Purpose of Meeting: Commission staff will hold a teleconference 
with staff from GMP and the Vermont State Historic Preservation Office 
to discuss the status of pending revisions to GMP's Historic Properties 
Management Plan and a projected schedule for finalizing and signing a 
Programmatic Agreement.
    f. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other 
interested parties are invited to attend the meeting. Please call or 
email Michael Tust at (202) 502-6522 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bfd2d6dcd7dedad391cbcacccbffd9dacddc91d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a7cacec4cfc6c2cb89d3d2d4d3e7c1c2d5c489c0c8d1">[email protected]</span></a> by 
February 18, 2022 at 4:30 p.m. EST, to RSVP and to receive specific 
instructions on how to participate.

    Dated: February 7, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02954 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Learn more at www.nationalguard.mil

Current as of July 2022 Point of Contact: NGB Public Affairs at (703) 607-2612

Response

Peak Numbers

• 120,091: Guard members 

engaged worldwide (June 

6).

• 86,400: Domestic Operations support (June 8).

• 47,100: COVID-19 support in 50 states, 3 territories and DC (May 10).

• 43,351: Civil disturbance 

support in 34 states and 

DC (June 7).

• 10.9 million: Days supporting our communities 

(DOMOPs) in FY20.

2020 truly demonstrated the 

National Guard’s ability to perform simultaneous combat and 

homeland response missions 

The year 2020 required unprecedented and historic National 

Guard homeland response 

efforts, while operating in the 

most complex and dangerous 

global security environment 

since the end of the Cold War.

National Guard members supported every global Combatant 

Commander requirement – 

more than 1 million overseas 

deployments since 9/11 -- and 

met every Governor request at 

home.

COVID-19 

RESPONSE

CIVIL UNREST

RESPONSE

NATURAL

DISASTERS

COMBAT 

MISSIONS

2020 EVENTS

2020: The Year of the Guard 2020: The Year of the Guard

The manning, training, equipment National Guard service 

members receive to support 

combat missions overseas 

significantly contributes to our 

homeland response success.

Warfight training and resourcing 

has enabled rapid and unified 

responses to the COVID, Operation Warp Speed, civil disturbance, severe weather, wildfire, 

election support, and counterdrug missions. 

The investment America has 

made to ensure the NG is ready 

for our combat mission is paying 

dividends in our communities -- 

saving lives, protecting property, 

and expediting recovery efforts.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### AUG 8 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-1134 DAVID LANE, Defendant-Appellant. (D.C. No. 96-M-3008) (D.Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. **
Defendant David Lane applies for a certificate of appealability with regard to the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, which the district court correctly interpreted as being brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Lane2

properly moves for a certificate of appealability because he filed his § 2255 motion in district court after April 24, 1996, the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which first imposed the requirement for a certificate of appealability in § 2255 proceedings. See Lindh v. Murphy , 117 S. Ct. 2059 (1997); United States v. Gutierrez , No. 96-2300, 1997 WL 383296 (10th Cir. July 11, 1997) (unpublished). However, because Lane fails to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), we deny his application. A jury convicted Lane under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2459(b)(2)(C) and 2. We affirmed the convictions on appeal in United States v. Lane , 883 F.2d 1484 (10th Cir. 1989). The district court denied the instant motion on the basis that it concerned the same ground covered in Lane’s trial and appeal. We are of the same opinion. Moreover, the arguments emphasized in his application for a certificate of appealability are frivolous. For example, Lane chiefly argues the federal government lacks criminal jurisdiction over virtually all crimes occurring within the boundaries of the individual states.
APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY DENIED.

Entered for the Court, Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge
Consent of Ian T. Blakley
 
 I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of reference to my name in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “Technical Report on the Peak Gold Mines, New South Wales, Australia” dated March 25, 2013, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2013, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.
 
 
 Dated this 28th day of March, 2014
 
 
 "Ian T. Blakley"Name:
Ian T. Blakley, P. GeoTitle:
Principal Geologist,

Vice-President & General Manager of RPA UK Ltd.
#### Deris HERRERA-MACHADO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73373

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 15, 2017

Jennifer K. Lesmez, Esquire, Law Offices of Jennifer Lesmez, Selah, WA, for Petitioner

OIL, Andrew B. Insenga, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*565MEMORANDUM **

Deris Herrera-Machado, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009) and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the harms Herrera-Machado suffered in Honduras as a gay man did not rise to the level of persecution. *See Nagoulko v. I.N.S.,*333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner who was teased, bothered, discriminated against, harassed, and never physically harmed failed to establish harm rising to the level of persecution). Thus, Herrera-Machado was not entitled to a rebuttable presumption of future persecution. *See Molina-Estrada v. I.N.S.,*293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002). Herrera-Machado does not otherwise challenge the agency’s determination that he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be persecuted if returned. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Herrera-Machado’s withholding of removal claim..

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Herrera-Machado failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Honduran government. *See Alphonsus v. Holder,*705 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Earl C. PIPPIN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Theresa MOSTELLER, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0594

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
**EXHIBIT 10.1**

**Rentrak Corporation**

**Summary of Compensation Arrangements for Non-EmployeeDirectors**

Eachnon-employee director of Rentrak Corporation (“Rentrak”) receives an annualretainer of $30,000. In addition, the chair of the Compensation Committee receivesa $3,000 annual retainer, the chair of the Audit Committee receives a $5,000annual retainer, and each other non-employee director who serves on the AuditCommittee receives a $2,500 annual retainer. Non-employee directors are alsopaid $1,200 for each board or committee meeting they attend in person or bytelephone conference call. Rentrak also reimburses directors for their travelexpenses for each meeting attended in person.

Inaccordance with the provisions of Rentrak’s 2005 Stock Incentive Plan approvedby the shareholders at the 2005 annual meeting, automatic option grants tonon-employee directors under Rentrak’s 1997 Equity Participation Plan haveceased. Future stock awards to non-employee directors will be made under the2005 plan in the discretion of the Compensation Committee.

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 5, 2012 

t0227 

Order 

 

March 5, 2012 

143850 

PAMELA SMITH, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143850 

 COA: 301021 

WCAC: 09-000216 

MORRISON MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS, 

INC., a/k/a COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., 

and ZURICH-AMERICAN INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF ILLINOIS/NEW HAMPSHIRE 

INSURANCE COMPANY/AIG, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 26, 2011 

order 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.
---

Exhibit 31.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer

I, James Guerra, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment
No. 1) of Lightbridge Corporation; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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
report.



Date: September 17, 2014

|/s/ James Guerra                                         | 
|-------------------------------------------------------- | 
|James Guerra, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer | 

---
Nataylia CHAPMAN, Estate of: Kristina Elisabet Konovalov, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. VENICE HIGH SCHOOL, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2974

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 09, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio R. HALL, a/k/a Mack, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6312

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 31, 2017

Decided: September 18, 2017

Antonio R. Hall, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr,, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Antonio R. Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Although the docketed notice of appeal was received after the expiration of the appeal period, Hall asserts that he previously delivered his original notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing on January 20, 2017, within the 60-day appeal period. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Because Hall is incarcerated, the notice is considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). The record does not conclusively establish that Hall in fact provided a notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing on January 20, 2017. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to make this finding and to determine whether Hall timely filed his notice of appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and *Houston v. Lack.*The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

*REMANDED*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0059

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

ROBERT AYRES DASILVA,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension 

of time, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 26, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s Reply brief on appeal.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 20 2023

09/20/2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>    5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Winthrop
Miami Associates Limited Partnership and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
 </LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1                     
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                         SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                13,988,000<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                             62,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                58,121,000
<DEPRECIATION>                       (9,017,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        69,210,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                               36,800,000
<COMMON>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                            13,407,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          69,210,000
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       8,105,000
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          6,742,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     3,317,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (1,633,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (1,633,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                         (1,633,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (5,444.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (5,444.44)
<FN>
<F1> Cash includes $5,333,000 of restricted cash.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
#### PERRY CAPITAL LLC, for and on Behalf of Investment Funds for which it Acts as Investment Manager, Appellant v. Steven T. MNUCHIN, in His Official Capacity as the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, et al., Appellees

No. 14-5243 Consolidated with 14-5254 14-5260 14-5262

September Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: February 21, 2017

Douglas R. Cox, Esquire, Matthew D. McGill, Theodore B. Olson, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Mark B. Stern, Alisa B. Klein, Gerard Joseph Sinzdak, Attorneys, Abby Christine Wright, U.S. Department of Justice, (DOJ) Civil Division, Appellate Staff, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees Steven T. Mnuchin, United States Department of the Treasury

David B. Bergman, Howard Neil Cayne, Ian S. Hoffman, Michael A.F. Johnson, Dirk Phillips, Arnold *&*Porter Kaye Scho-ler LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees Melvin L. Watt, Federal Housing Finance Agency

Pierre H. Bergeron, Attorney, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Cincinnati, OH, for Amicus Curiae National Black Chamber of Commerce

Thomas Ryan McCarthy, Attorney, Con-sovoy McCarthy PLLC, Arlington, VA, for Amicus Curiae for Appellant Timothy Howard

Dennis Michael Kelleher, Counsel, Better Markets, Inc., Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae for Appellee Better Markets, Inc.

Robert John Rhatigan, Attorney, Steven Gill Bradbury, Robert H. Ledig, Thomas P. Vartanian, Dechert, LLP, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae for Appellants Independent Community Bankers of America, Association of Mortgage Investors, William M. Isaac, Robert H. Hartheimer

Jerome A. Madden, Esquire, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, (FDIC) Legal Division, Arlington, VA, for Amicus Curiae for Appellee Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Jerrold Ganzfried, Holland <& Knight LLP, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae for Appellant 60 Plus Association, Inc.

Myron Thomas Steele, Attorney, Potter Anderson *&*Corroon LLP, Dover, DE, for Amicus Curiae for Appellant Center for Individual Freedom

Michael Hugh Krimminger, Cleary Gott-lieb Steen *&*Hamilton LLP, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae for Appellant Investors Unite

*3Gregory P.N. Joseph, Joseph Hage Aar-onson LLC, New York, NY, for Amici Curiae for Appellants Louise Rafter, Josephine Rattien, Stephen Pattien, Pershing Square Capital Management, LP

Before: Brown and Millett, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Millett and Senior Circuit Judge Ginsburg.

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge Brown.

Per Curiam

These causes came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and were argued by counsel. On consideration thereof, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed in part and the claims be remanded in part, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date.
**Exhibit 12.2**

I, Ron Ela, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20–F of Commtouch Software Ltd.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 report;

4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a–15(e) and 15d–15(e)) for the Company and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation report; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

| Date: June 27, 2006 | /s/Ron Ela |
|---------------------|------------|

| ———————————                                    |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  
Ron Ela

 
 
Chief Financial Officer 

 
 

 

 

 

  |