alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6111]



[[Page 11428]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TQ97-2-35-000]


West Texas Gas, Inc.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

March 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on March 3, 1997, West Texas Gas, Inc. (WTG), 
tendered for filing proposed changes in its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1. WTG submitted Twenty-Second Revised Sheet No. 4 
to be effective April 1, 1997.
    WTG states that this tariff sheet and the accompanying explanatory 
schedules constitute WTG's Quarterly PGA filing submitted in accordance 
with the purchased gas adjustment provisions of Section 19 of the 
General Terms and Conditions of WTG's FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised 
Volume No. 1.
    Because the proposed tariff sheet reflects a reduction in rates, 
WTG requests appropriate waivers as necessary to permit this filing to 
be placed into effect on less than 30 days notice, on April 1, 1997.
    WTG states that copies of the filing were served upon WTG's 
customers and interested state commissions.
    Any persons desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make the protestants parties 
to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-6111 Filed 3-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gerardo Omar FRANCO-DE LA CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40339 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 14, 2018

Anna Elizabeth Kalluri, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

James Scott Sullivan, Esq., Law Offices of J. Scott Sullivan, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gerardo Omar Franco-De La Cruz appeals the 58-month sentence imposed on his guilty plea conviction of possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Because Franco-De La Cruz did not alert the district court to the specific issues he now raises on appeal, we review for plain error. *See United States v. Neal,*578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009).

First, Franco-De La Cruz argues that the district court improperly limited the extent of his downward departure by considering improper factors. *See United States v. Desselle,*450 F.3d 179, 182 (5th Cir. 2006). If we assume without deciding that the district court’s comments at sentencing reflect a clear or obvious error, we nonetheless conclude that Franco-De La Cruz has not shown that the error affected his substantial rights. *See United States v. Escalante-Reyes,*689 F.3d 415, 424 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc); *United States v. Malone,*828 F.3d 331, 341 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 526, 196 L.Ed.2d 408 (2016) (finding harmless error where the district court merely “muddled the steps” in formulating the sentence).

Second, Franeo-De La Cruz disagrees with how the district court balanced the pertinent § 3553(a) sentencing factors. We perceive no reversible error. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *Malone,*828 F.3d at 342 *&*n.41.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5m Cir. R. 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 Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit 32.04**

**SOUTH      CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/Kevin                B. Marsh                                                |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Kevin                B. Marsh                                                   |   |
| Senior                Vice President and Chief Financial                Officer |
1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0128 PAUL PHILLIP BARDOS AND MARY L. BARDOS REVOCABLE TRUST ,

Plaintiff and Appellant , vs. ROBERT L. SPOKLIE ,

Defendant and Appellee .

**ORDER**

______________________________________________________________ Upon consideration of

Appellee’s motion for extension of t ime, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an e xtension of

tim e to and including October 3, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve his response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 16 2022

09/16/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0128
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. Section #1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ("Form 10-Q") of Galaxy
Nutritional Foods, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael
E. Broll, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

      (1) The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.


                                        /s/ Michael E. Broll
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Michael E. Broll
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        August 14, 2006
# C_2022463EN.01004902.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/49

---

Order of the General Court of 30 September 2022 — Collard v ID

(Case T-53/22) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his or her political group - Applicant who has ceased to reply to the Court’s requests - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 463/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gilbert Collard (Vauvert, France) (represented by: B. Kuchukian, lawyer)

Defendant: Identity and Democracy political group (ID) (represented by: J. Bosquet, lawyer)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decisions of the Bureau of the European Parliament’s ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID) of 22 and 25 January 2022 by which he was suspended and then excluded from that group.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is directed against the ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID). |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it is directed against the ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID).

| 2. | The applicant shall pay the costs, with the exception of those on which the Court has previously ruled in the order of 14 July 2022, Collard v Parliament and ID (T-53/22, not published, EU:T:2022:463). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall pay the costs, with the exception of those on which the Court has previously ruled in the order of 14 July 2022, Collard v Parliament and ID (T-53/22, not published, EU:T:2022:463).

---

(1)  OJ C 158, 11.4.2022.

---
Exhibit 21
                     
                     
           
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     SUBSIDIARIES

                     1.   Puget Western, Inc.
                      19515 North Creek Parkway
                      Suite 310
                      Bothell, Washington  98011
                     
                     2.   Puget Sound Energy Company
                      P.O. Box 97034
                      Bellevue, Washington  98009-9734
                     
                     3.   TELLUS, INC.
                      19515 North Creek Parkway
                      Suite 310
                      Bothell, Washington  98011
                     
                     4.   Puget Energy, Inc.
                      411-108th Avenue Northeast
                      Bellevue, Washington  98004-5515
                     
                     5.   Hydro Energy Development Corporation
                      19515 North Creek Parkway
                      Suite 310
                      Bothell, Washington  98011
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>




<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
BALANCE SHEETS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1995, AND STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS FOR THE 
THREE MONTHS AND SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995, AND IS QUALIFIED IN 
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 
</LEGEND>


<PERIOD-TYPE>                      	3-MOS 

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>   	JUN-30-1995

 <PERIOD-START>                     	OCT-01-1995

 <PERIOD-END>                       	DEC-31-1995 

<CASH>                                 	1,317,104 

<SECURITIES>                                 	0 

<RECEIVABLES>                 	        8,044,458 

<ALLOWANCES>                              249,000 

<INVENTORY>                          	  898,157

 <CURRENT-ASSETS>                      10,644,216

 <PP&E>                               	5,865,394

 <DEPRECIATION>                         1,386,682 

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         33,019,472

 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 16,787,815

 <BONDS>                                   	0

 <COMMON>                                   8,601 

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0

 <PREFERRED>                                1,000 

<OTHER-SE>                             10,414,024 

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              33,019,472 

<SALES>                                13,088,191 

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       13,088,191 

<CGS>                           	6,605,529 

<TOTAL-COSTS>                          12,299,242 

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          120,249

 <LOSS-PROVISION>                           	0

 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       142,045

 <INCOME-PRETAX>                          668,700

 <INCOME-TAX>                             383,400

 <INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (285,300) 

<DISCONTINUED>                               	0 

<EXTRAORDINARY>                              	0

 <CHANGES>                                   	0

 <NET-INCOME>                             285,300

 <EPS-PRIMARY>                           	 0.03

 <EPS-DILUTED>                            	 0.03 

</TABLE>
*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 93-2516

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES of AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HOSIE JAMES III,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

 

(February 16, 1995)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hosie James III was convicted of possession with intent to

distribute over fifty grams of crack cocaine. The probation

officer determined that James' guidelines sentence range was 151-

188 months. The district court adopted the PSR and sentenced James

to a term of 160 months. James argues that the district court
2

failed to supply adequate reasons for choosing the 160-month

sentence. 

By statute, a sentencing court must consider the nature and

circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of

the defendant; the need for punishment, deterrence, public

protection and rehabilitation; the available sentences; the

guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission; the need for consistency in sentencing; and the need

for restitution. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). If a defendant's guidelines

sentencing range exceeds twenty-four months, the district court

must state in open court its reasons for selecting a particular

sentence within the range. Id. § 3553(c)(1). The sentencing court

must link the pertinent facts to the relevant statutory factors

supporting the sentence imposed. See United States v. Duran, 37

F.3d 557, 560-61 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d

315, 344-45 (2d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1565 (1994);

see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

James did not object to the district court's allegedly

inadequate reasons for imposing a 160-month sentence. Therefore,

we review for plain error. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d

160, 162 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), petition for cert. filed, ___

U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. Jan. 18, 1995) (No. 94-7792). The requirements

enunciated in Calverley have not been met.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2022222EN.01003202.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/32

---

Action brought on 4 April 2022 — Chambers and Others v Commission

(Case T-177/22)

(2022/C 222/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Alexander Chambers (Barcelona, Spain) and nine other applicants (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the applicants’ payslips for June 2021 in so far as they are indicative of a decision to withdraw the flat-rate allowance owed by way of reimbursement of the costs of travelling from the place of employment to the place of origin; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the applicants’ payslips for June 2021 in so far as they are indicative of a decision to withdraw the flat-rate allowance owed by way of reimbursement of the costs of travelling from the place of employment to the place of origin;

| — | annul, in so far as it supplements the statement of reasons for the contested decision, the decision of 22 December 2021 rejecting the complaint of 30 August 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as it supplements the statement of reasons for the contested decision, the decision of 22 December 2021 rejecting the complaint of 30 August 2021;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-177/22, Mellish v Commission.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.4

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
3TEC Energy Corporation:

    We consent to the use of our report dated February 14, 2003, with respect
to the consolidated balance sheets of 3TEC Energy Corporation and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, incorporated by
reference in this document and to the reference to our firm under the heading
"Experts" in the registration statement.

    Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting for derivative
instruments and hedging activities, effective January 1, 2001.

/s/ KPMG LLP
-------------------------------
KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas
March 25, 2003
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH ANTHONY BROWN,

Petitioner,

vs.

U.S.A.,

Respondent.

/

1:11-cv-01586-GSA-(HC)

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254.

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity

jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendantsreside

in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise

to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or 

(3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may

otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

In this case, the petitioner is challenging a conviction from Washington D.C. Superior Court,

which is in the District of Columbia. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States

-1-
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

District Court for the District of Columbia. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a case

filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d

918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States

District Court for the District of Columbia.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin

23ehd0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-
```

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11768-11769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6395]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Parts 91, 93, 121, and 135

[Docket No. 28537; Amendment Number 93-74, and SFAR No. 50-2]
RIN 2120-AF93

Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National 
Park; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, request for comments; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the final rule 
published in the Federal Register (62 FR 8862) on

[[Page 11769]]

February 26, 1997. The Final rule codifies the provisions of Special 
Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 50-2, Special Flight Rules in 
the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP); Modifies the 
dimensions of the GCNP Special Flight Rules Area establishes new and 
modifies existing flight-free zones; establishes new and modifies 
existing flight corridors; establishes reporting requirements for 
commercial sightseeing companies operating during certain time periods; 
and limits the number of aircraft that can be used for commercial 
sightseeing operaitons in the GCNP Special Flight Rules Areas.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective date of May 1, 1997, for 14 CFR 93.301, 
93.305, and 93.307, is delayed until 0901 UTC January 31, 1998. SFAR 
No. 50-2 is reinstated and amended effective 0901 UTC May 1, 1997. SFAR 
No. 50-2, Setions 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 are removed effective 0901 UTC May 
1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMAITON CONTACT: Neil Saunders, (202-267-8783).

Correction of Publication

    In the rule document (FR Doc. 97-4824) on page 8863 in the issue of 
Wednesday, February 26, 1997, Amendment nubmers were inserted 
incorrectly, and an SFAR number was omitted in the docket line of the 
heading. Please make the following corrections: On page 8862, column 1, 
in the heading, the docket line in brackets is corrected to read as set 
forth above.

    Issued in Washington, DC on March 5, 1997.
Donald P. Byrne,
Assistant Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 97-6395 Filed 3-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
```
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 893 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 893

To amend title 18, United States Code, to direct the Bureau of Prisons 
 to provide certain voting information to Federal prisoners upon their 
                          release from prison.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 30, 2019

 Mr. Jeffries (for himself, Ms. Meng, and Ms. Barragan) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to direct the Bureau of Prisons 
 to provide certain voting information to Federal prisoners upon their 
                          release from prison.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ex-Offender Voter Registration Act 
of 2019''.

SEC. 2. PROVISION OF VOTING INFORMATION TO FEDERAL PRISONERS.

    Section 4042(a)(E) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting after clause (vii) the following:
                            ``(viii) The laws and regulations governing 
                        the right of an individual convicted of a 
                        felony who has been released from prison to 
                        vote in each of the 50 States, and, for the 
                        State in which the prisoner will reside upon 
                        release, any voter registration or application 
                        forms that the prisoner will need to complete 
                        in order to vote.''.
                                 <all>
```