alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6333]


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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Applications for Consolidated Hearing

    1. The Commission has before it the following mutually exclusive 
applications for new noncommercial, educational FM construction 
permits:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       MM Docket
               Applicant                         City/State                      File No.                 No.   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Positive Alternative Radio, Inc.....  Point Pleasant, West       BPED-920327MH....................      97-76
                                          Virginia.                                                             
B. The University of West Virginia       Huntington, West Virginia  BPED-921023MB....................      97-76
 Board of Trustees.                                                                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Pursuant to Section 309(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, the above applications have been designated for hearing in a 
consolidated proceeding upon the issues whose headings are set forth 
below. The text of each of the issues has been standardized and is set 
forth in its entirety under the corresponding heading at 51 Fed. Reg. 
19347, May 29, 1986. The letters shown before each applicant's name 
above are used below to signify the issue in question applicable to 
that particular applicant.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Issue heading                         Applicant(s)       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 307(b)--Noncommercial Educational FM....  A, B                       
2. Ultimate................................  A, B                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. If there are any non-standardized issues in this proceeding, the 
full text of the issue and the applicant(s) to which it applies are set 
forth in an Appendix to this Notice. A copy of the complete HDO in this 
proceeding is available for inspection and copying during normal 
business hours in the FCC Dockets Branch (Room 230), 1919 M Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. The complete text may also be purchased from the 
Commission's duplicating contractor, International Transcription 
Service, Inc., 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037, 
telephone (202) 857-3800.
Linda B. Blair,
Chief, Audio Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-6333 Filed 3-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier MALDONADO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7547

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 13, 2018

Decided: March 16, 2018

Javier Maldonado, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Ledbetter .Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Sean James Wright, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Dennis Michael Fitzpatrick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Javier Maldonado appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Maldonado,*No. 1:10-cr-00191-JCC-3 (E.D. Va. Sept. 21, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### Barry M. ATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALYPSO SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation; Eden Kim, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15125

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 20, 2017

Barry M, Atkins, Pro Se

Roy Bartlett, Bartlett Law Firm, Walnut Creek, CA, Lashawn D. Jenkins, Jenkins Law Firm, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Barry M. Atkins appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action alleging state law claims in connection with a dispute over a 'debt-to-stock conversion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C, § 1291. We review de novo, *Lukovsky*v, *City of San Francisco,*535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

*883The district court properly granted summary judgment on Atkins’ contract claims because they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations under California law. *See*Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337(1) (four-year statute of limitations for any action upon a contract); *Krieger v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc.,*234 Cal.App.3d 205, 285 Cal.Rptr. 717 (1991) (section 337(1) applies to claims of breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing). The district court properly concluded that Atkins was not entitled to equitable estoppel. *See Kennedy v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co.,*952 F.2d 262, 266 (9th Cir. 1991) (a party cannot create an dispute of fact with an affidavit contradicting his prior deposition testimony); *Vu v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.,*26 Cal.4th 1142, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 70, 33 P.3d 487 (2001) (equitable estoppel under California law requires reliance be reasonable).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Atkins’ tort claims because they are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations under Arizona law. *See Hullett v. Cousin,*204 Ariz. 292, 63 P.3d 1029, 1034 (2003) (two-year statute of limitations for negligent misrepresentation); *Walker v. Walker,*18 Ariz.App. 113, 500 P.2d 898, 899-900 (1972) (two-year statute of limitations for conversion); *San Manuel Copper Corp. v. Redmond,*8 Ariz. App. 214, 445 P.2d 162, 166 (1968) (four-year statute of limitations for unjust enrichment).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees pursuant to its inherent powers. *See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.,*501 U.S. 32, 45-46, 50, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (stating standard of review and explaining that a court may assess attorney’s fees when a fraud has been practiced upon it).

Appellees’ request for attorney’s fees on appeal, set forth in their answering brief, is denied without prejudice to filing a motion in accordance with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Ninth Circuit Rule 39-Í.6.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
dwsfex1012b.htm











 


AMENDMENT NO. 2


 


 


TO


 


 


MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT


 


 


WHEREAS, MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM SELECT L.P. (formerly known as Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Spectrum Select L.P.), a Delaware limited partnership (the “Partnership”), CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “General Partner”), and NORTHFIELD TRADING L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Trading Advisor”), have agreed to amend the Amended and Restated Management Agreement (the “Management Agreement”), dated as of May 1, 2001, and as previously amended by Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment No. 1”), dated as of May 9, 2011, among the Partnership, the General Partner and the Trading Advisor, to reduce the monthly management fee rate payable to the Trading Advisor.  Terms used and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Management Agreement.


 


WHEREAS, all provisions contained in the Management Agreement remain in full force and effect and are modified only to the extent necessary to provide for the amendments set forth below.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby amend the Management Agreement as follows:


 


1.           The monthly management fee rate referred to in clause (a)(i) of the Section entitled “Fees” in the Management Agreement, which was previously reduced in Amendment No. 1 to a monthly management fee rate equal to 1/12 of 2.00% (a 2.00% annual rate), is hereby reduced to a monthly management fee rate equal to 1/12 of 1.00% (a 1.00% annual rate).


 


2.           The foregoing amendment shall take effect as of the 1st day of December, 2013.


 


3.           This Amendment No. 2 may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute the same agreement.


 


4.           This Amendment No. 2 shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.






  





  











  








 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Management Agreement has been executed for and on behalf of the undersigned as of the 6th day of November, 2013.


 



	
  

	
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY SPECTRUM SELECT L.P.







 



	
  

	
By:  Ceres Managed Futures LLC,







 



	
  

	
General Partner







 



	
  

	
By:

	
_/s/ Alper Daglioglu_______







 



	
  

	
Name:

	
Alper Daglioglu







 



	
  

	
Title:

	
President







 



	
  

	
CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC







 



	
  

	
By:

	
_/s/ Alper Daglioglu_______







 



	
  

	
Name:

	
Alper Daglioglu







 



	
  

	
Title:

	
President







 



	
  

	
NORTHFIELD TRADING L.P.







 



	
  

	
By:

	
_/s/ Douglas Bry__________







 



	
  

	
Name:

	
Douglas Bry







 



	
  

	
Title:

	
President
#### Christopher Lee JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. APPLE, INC.; Tim Cook, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-2331

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 5, 2018

Decided: March 13, 2018

Christopher Lee Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*280PER CURIAM:

Christopher Lee Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Johnson’s civil complaint without prejudice. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 21, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on November 6, 2017. Because Johnson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Submitted October 25, 2016,

appeal dismissed February 23,

petition for review allowed June 1, 2017 (361 Or 524)

#### In the Matter of J. B., a Child. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, *Petitioner-Respondent, v.*A. B., *Appellant.*

Washington County Circuit Court

J150426; A161125

389 P3d 409

Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate Section, and Sarah Peterson, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the briefs for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Duncan, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Garrett, Judge.

*908PER CURIAM

In this dependency case, mother appeals the juvenile court’s judgment assuming jurisdiction over her son, J. While the appeal was pending, the juvenile court dismissed jurisdiction and terminated wardship over J. The Department of Human Services argues that the appeal is therefore moot. Mother disagrees, arguing that she continues to suffer collateral consequences from the existence of the jurisdictional judgment, notwithstanding the dismissal of jurisdiction.

A written discussion of the competing arguments would not assist the parties, bench, or bar. After reviewing the record and arguments, we are not persuaded that the circumstances establish the kind of collateral consequences that prevent this appeal from being moot.

Mother also argues that we should consider her appeal under ORS 14.175, because it is capable of repetition yet evading review. Assuming, without deciding, that the issues mother raised might otherwise satisfy the criteria set forth in ORS 14.175, we decline to exercise our discretion to reach those issues in this case.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

Appeal dismissed.
ex10a.htm




















Exhibit 10(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 48 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 033-25990) pertaining to Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account C, which is incorporated by reference into Post-Effective Amendment No. 19 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-112927) and Amendment No. 136 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-03214) and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2014, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 1, 2014, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account C for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.



 


 


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP












Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


April 1, 2014
#### George P. Garrett v. Dr. P. Phillips.

154 So. 835.

Division B.

Opinion Filed April 2, 1934.

Petition for Rehearing Denied May 30, 1934.

*G. P. Garrett*and *G. Wayne Gray,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Hugh Akerman, Allison E. Palmer*and *William H. Dial,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

— This was a suit where a tenant under a written lease abandoned the lease and delivered up possession of the premises to the lessor before the expiration *392of the lease. He notified the lessor that he was abandoning the lease and would pay no further rental. He delivered to the lessor the keys to the premises, together with a quit claim deed to any interest which might have accrued to him under the lease. The lessor returned the quit claim deed and advised lessee that he would be held to the terms of the lease. Lessor then exercised the usual methods of endeavor to release the premises, which it was his duty to do, for the benefit of the lessee. He failed to procure a tenant and at the expiration of the lease sued the lessee for the rental due under the terms of the lease.

Judgment was for plaintiff in a less sum than the amount stipulated in the lease and lessee-took writ of error.

The record discloses no reversible error. The judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Buford, J. J., concur.
#### Truman H. Newberry, *et al.,*v. W. B. Harris, *et al.,*as Board of Commissioners of Pinellas County, *et al.,*and David Sholtz, *et al.,*as State Board of Administration, *et al.*

153 So. 901.

En Banc.

Opinion Filed April 2, 1934.

Per Curiam.

— In this case the Supreme Court declines to take original jurisdiction of the controversy sought to be adjudicated by a proceeding in mandamus against the officials of Pinellas County and the State Board of Administration, because it has not been made to appear that there is any new or novel question herein sought to be raised or presented, nor does it appear that there is any such question of public interest necessarily involved, as will warrant this Court in assuming original jurisdiction with respect to a matter which it appears' to us can be just as well adjudicated in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County without undue' prejudice to the rights of the relators.

The principles upon which the Supreme Court acts in assuming original jurisdiction in mandamus cases involving the enforcement of public securities were stated in Humphreys v. State, *ex rel.*Palm Beach Co., 108 Fla. 92, 145 Sou. Rep. 858, as follows (145 Sou. Rep., text p. 865) :

> “* * * the power vested in the Supreme Court to assume *380and exercise original jurisdiction in mandamus cases, * * * has been habitually exercised' by the Supreme Court only in those cases where it appeared that there was involved some grave question of general law, possibly controlling in other cases of like character, and thereby necessitating an early decision in the interest of avoiding unnecessary litigation.”

There is nothing before us in the present case to show that this case involves any, special or peculiar question of law, an early decision of which will avoid unnecessary litigation in other cases which would be controlled by force of the decision in this case, therefore the' alternative writ is denied, but without prejudice to leave to withdraw the petition filed here in order that it may be filed in the Circuit Court.

Alternative writ denied without prejudice to apply to Circuit Court.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
#### LAFFERTY, H. v. FERRIS, T.

1131 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/21/2017

Reargument Denied 12/4/2017

2008-01941

(Susquehanna)

Affirmed/Vacated
#### COM. v. HAIRSTON, D.

116 MDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/25/2017

CP-22-CR-0004751-2011

(Dauphin)

Affirmed
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.7

<TABLE>
<S>     <C>                             <C>
H.J. GRUY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
333 Clay Street, Suite 3850, Houston, Texas 77002 . TEL. (713) 739-1000 . FAX (713) 739-6112
</TABLE>


                   CONSENT OF H.J. GRUY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

We hereby consent to the use of the name H.J. Gruy and Associates, Inc. and of
references to H.J. Gruy and Associates, Inc. and to the inclusion of and
references to our reports, or information contained therein, dated March 10,
2000, and dated March 9, 2001, prepared for Stocker Resources, Inc. in the
Registration Statement on Amendment No. 2 to Form S-4 of Plains Exploration &
Production Company for the filing dated April 29, 2003.

                                              H.J. GRUY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                              Texas Registration Number F-000637



                                              by: /s/ SYLVIA CASTILLEJA
                                                 -------------------------------
                                              Sylvia Castilleja, P.E.
                                              Vice President

April 29, 2003
Houston, Texas
# C_2022441EN.01000304.xml

| 21.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 441/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 441/3

---

Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by FJ and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-619/20, FJ and Others v EEAS

(Case C-171/22 P)

(2022/C 441/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: FJ and Others (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service

By order of 5 October 2022, the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and ordered the appellants to bear their own costs.

---
| POWER      OF ATTORNEY                                    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                      |
| Annual      Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended |
| December      31, 2009                                    |

| Company                                  | State of Incorporation |
|------------------------------------------|------------------------|
| Public      Service Company of Oklahoma  | Oklahoma               |
| Southwestern      Electric Power Company | Delaware               |

| /s/ Nicholas K. Akins  | /s/ Barbara D. Radous  |
|------------------------|------------------------|
| Nicholas      K. Akins | Barbara      D. Radous |
|                   |                   |
| /s/ Carl L. English    | /s/ Robert P. Powers   |
| Carl      L. English   | Robert      P. Powers  |
|                   |                   |
| /s/ John B. Keane      | /s/ Brian X. Tierney   |
| John      B. Keane     | Brian      X. Tierney  |
|                   |                   |
| /s/ Michael G. Morris  | /s/ Susan Tomasky      |
| Michael      G. Morris | Susan      Tomasky     |
|                   |                   |
| /s/ Charles R. Patton  | /s/ Dennis E. Welch    |
| Charles      R. Patton | Dennis      E. Welch   |
# C_2022148EN.01004402.xml

| 4.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/44

---

Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Kanyama v Council

(Case T-95/22)

(2022/C 148/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Célestin Kanyama (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

| — | annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 4 in the annex to that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 4 in the annex to that decision;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 4 in Annex I to that regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 4 in Annex I to that regulation;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-90/22, Kande Mupompa v Council.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3).

---