alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 69 (Thursday, April 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 17607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9273]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-141-002]


Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership; Notice of 
Compliance Filing

April 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on April 1, 1997, Great Lakes Gas Transmission 
Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) tendered for consideration as part of 
its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff 
sheets to be effective June 1, 1997:

Third Revised Sheet No. 1
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 4
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 4A
Second Revised Sheet No. 8
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 9
Second Revised Sheet No. 10
Original Sheet No. 10A
Second Revised Sheet No. 11
Original Sheet No. 11A
First Revised Sheet No. 12
Third Revised Sheet No. 13
Original Sheet No. 13A
Second Revised Sheet No. 17
Second Revised Sheet No. 20
Second Revised Sheet No. 21
Second Revised Sheet No. 22
First Revised Sheet No. 27
Original Sheet No. 27A
Second Revised Sheet No. 31
Second Revised Sheet No. 33
First Revised Sheet No. 39
Original Sheet No. 39A
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 40
First Revised Sheet No. 40A
First Revised Sheet No. 40B
Third Revised Sheet No. 41
Original Sheet No. 41A
Second Revised Sheet No. 42
Original Sheet No. 42A
Original Sheet No. 42B
Second Revised Sheet No. 43
Second Revised Sheet No. 50C

    Great Lakes states that these tariff sheets are being filed in 
compliance with an order of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) issued February 13, 1997 in the above named proceeding. 
The order required Great Lakes to file actual tariff sheets reflecting 
the required modifications to the pro forma tariff sheets filed 
December 2, 1996 in compliance with Order No. 587, 76 FERC para.61,042 
(1996), issued July 17, 1996, in Docket No. RM96-1/000. In Order No. 
587, the Commission adopted the standards proposed by the Gas Industry 
Standards Board (GISB) to standardize business practices and electronic 
communications.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before April 21, 1997. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Commission's Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-9273 Filed 4-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
1

King, Melanie

Subject: FW: Mods rule - think this should be very close

Attachments: EO12866_GHG EGU ModifiedSources 2060-AR88 Proposal__20140530 (without track 

changes).docx

From: Culligan, Kevin  

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 9:07 PM

To: 'Higgins, Cortney'

Subject: FW: Mods rule ‐ think this should be very close

We are moving this through the process to ROCIS.

From: Fellner, Christian  

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 9:05 PM

To: Culligan, Kevin

Subject: RE: Mods rule ‐ think this should be very close

Kevin,

The clean version for OMB review is attached.

Thanks,

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Christian Fellner

Energy Strategies Group

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

United States Environmental Protection Agency

919.541.4003 (phone)

919.541.5450 (fax)

From: Culligan, Kevin  

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:51 PM

To: Fellner, Christian

Subject: FW: Mods rule ‐ think this should be very close

Just need a clean version

From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]  

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:40 PM

To: Culligan, Kevin

Subject: RE: Mods rule ‐ think this should be very close

Just a clean.   

From: Culligan, Kevin [mailto:Culligan.Kevin@epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:40 PM 
2

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Subject: RE: Mods rule - think this should be very close 

Should I send you a clean and a red‐line from the beginning of the process or just a clean?

We’re making the edit and we’ll start moving it through the ROCIS process.

From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]  

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:38 PM

To: Culligan, Kevin

Subject: RE: Mods rule ‐ think this should be very close

And if you can make this change and send me  a clean version, we can get it uploaded.   

From: Higgins, Cortney 

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:28 PM 

To: Culligan, Kevin 

Subject: RE: Mods rule - think this should be very close 

Here’s the edit.  Moved one sentence down.   

From: Culligan, Kevin [mailto:Culligan.Kevin@epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 4:58 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Subject: Mods rule - think this should be very close 

Would be very good for you to check language we discussed this morning and make sure I got it right.
#### COM. v. STOUT, M.

1600 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/17/2017

CP-40-CR-0000258-2014 (Luzerne)

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,151                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,811                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,727)                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     44,780                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                90,583                       0
<PP&E>                                          31,455                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 139,579                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,293                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           190                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,399                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   139,579                       0
<SALES>                                         48,717                  83,936
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,717                  83,936
<CGS>                                           37,556                  62,413
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,187                  77,768
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (34)                   (345)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,662                   3,177
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,907                   3,341
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,046                   1,198
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,861                   2,143
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,861                   2,143
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .84                    1.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .84                    1.02
        

</TABLE>
|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                          
|View History:                                           
|                                                        
|Montana Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet) 
|                                                        
|                                                        
|Montana Dry Natural Gas Production (Million Cubic Feet) 
|                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 55,577 | 50,918 | 50,405 | 51,305  | 45,506  | 45,398  | 50,582  | 50,212
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 49,338 | 50,944 | 52,960 | 53,787 | 49,785 | 49,667  | 50,420  | 52,028  | 57,235  | 60,728
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 69,664 | 80,927 | 85,500 | 85,412 | 96,128 | 106,769 | 111,423 | 115,272 | 110,907 | 96,392
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 86,172 | 73,372 | 65,463 | 61,597 | 57,490 | 49,626  | 46,374  | 44,760  | 42,096  | 42,074
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 37,109 | 37,479 | 37,495 |        |        |         |         |         |         |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
Exhibit 10.16(b)

Exhibit A

APL  Spectrum Acquisition

Acquisition Look Back Example For Employment Agreement



|                                                                                     |  |   |             |  
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | - | ----------- | -
|Most recent quarterly distribution                                                   |  |   | 0.63        |  
|Multiplied by four                                                                   |  |   | 4           |  
|                                                                                     |  |   |             |  
|Annualized distribution                                                              |  | $ | 2.52        |  
|                                                                                     | 
|Closing price of APL common unit on 12/31/2008                                       |  | $ | 38.00       |  
|                                                                                     | 
|Yield (distribution/Closing price)                                                   |  |   | 7.20        | %
|                                                                                     | 
|Distributed Cash Flow generated by acquisition during the 12 months ended 12/31/2008 |  | $ | 10,000,000  |  
|                                                                                     | 
|Imputed Value (Dist Cash Flow / Yield)                                               |  | $ | 138,888,889 |  
|                                                                                     | 
|Incentive %                                                                          |  |   | 1.50        | %
|                                                                                     | 
|Incentive amount (Imputed value * Incentive %)                                       |  | $ | 2,083,333   |  
|                                                                                     | 
|# of units issued (Incentive amount / unit price)                                    |  |   | 59,524      |
#### State v. Wages

110,910

08/20/2015

Denied

Unpublished
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:97-

cr-00053-PJM-1; 8:07-cv-02689-PJM-1)

Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 7, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Jay Tenpas, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as

successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Elliott has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and 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
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 16, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 16, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16I0035. ADAM GANIM v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

14C76720
Exhibit 4.34



 Exhibit 4.34 
  
  
 THIS DEED OF ASSIGNMENT is made the 25th day of June, 2003 
  
 BETWEEN 
  

	(1)	 	Jesper Limited whose registered office is situate at P.O. Box 71, Cragimuir, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands (hereinafter called “the Vendor”);
 

  
   And 
  

	(2)	 	ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES INC. whose registered office is situate at No. 1, R & D Road 1, Hsinchu Science-Based Industrial Park, Hsinchu, Taiwan, ROC (hereinafter called “the
Purchaser”). 

  
 WHEREAS 
  

	(A)	 	By a promissory note of 4th November 2002 as varied by a Deed of Variation of 2nd December 2002, MMT is indebted to Vendor in the principal sum of USD37,500,000.00 in such terms and
conditions therein contained (“the Note”). 

  

	(B)	 	The said principal sum of USD37,500,000.00 together with interest thereon will become due six months after the date of the Note but has been extended for further six months to 3rd
November 2003 in due course. 

  

	(C)	 	When the said principal sum of USD37,500,000.00 with interest thereon is due and is not repaid by MMT in manner contained under the Note, the Vendor may convert all sum outstanding
or any part thereof into ordinary shares of MMT at the conversion rate of USD1.00 for 1 ordinary share of MMT. 

  

	(D)	 	The Vendor has agreed with the Purchaser for the absolute sale to it, out of the said principal sum of USD37,500,000.00 under the Note, the sum of USD16,500,745 and interest thereon
to become due in manner hereinafter expressed. 

  
 NOW THIS DEED
WITNESSETH as follows: 
  

	1.	 	 In consideration of USD16,554,143 paid by the Purchaser to the Vendor (the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged) the Vendor as beneficial owner assigns to the
Purchaser the USD16,500,745 due under the Note together with interest thereon to become due and all other monies hereafter to become payable by force or virtue of the Note and the full right, benefit and advantage of the premises TO HOLD the same
unto the Purchaser 



  

 - 1 - 








 absolutely. 
  

	2.	 	The receipt of the Purchaser shall be a good discharge to MMT for the said sum of USD16,500,745 and interest thereon due under the Note hereby assigned. 

  

	3.	 	This Deed shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the British Virgin Islands. 

  
 IN WITNESS whereof the parties have executed this Deed on the day and year first above written. 
  

	SEALED with the Common Seal
of the Vendor and signed
by
in the presence of:	 	 	 	 For and on behalf of
 JESPER LIMITED

	 	 	 	  
 /s/                                      
                      

	 	 	 	 Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  Ÿ  
                         Authorized Signature(s)

	 SEALED with the Common Seal
Of the Purchaser and signed
by    /s/  Shih-Jye
Cheng
in the presence of:    
 /s/
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 

  
 Dated
                the 25th day of June, 2003 
  

 - 2 -
129P16

#### State v. Dwain Bell

1. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Habeas Corpus*

2. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion for Bill of Complaint

3. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion for Objection to Order of Bill of Complaint Dismissed

1. Denied

2. Dismissed

3. Dismissed
|                                                                                            
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                              
|View History: Annual                                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                        
|View History:                                                                               
|                                                                                            
|Lake Charles, LA Natural Gas Liquefied Natural Gas Imports from Brunei  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|Lake Charles, LA Natural Gas Liquefied Natural Gas Imports from Brunei  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | NA    
|2000's                                                                                                                            | NA     | NA     | 2,401  | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
No. 12-6587.

#### Andrews *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### State v. Kelley

110,153

07/22/2015

Denied

Unpublished
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13** 

**- 7404** 

LEROY SHAW ,

P laintiff

- Appell ant ,

v.

WILLIAM R. BYARS, Director; LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden; SCOTT LEWIS, Assistant Warden; JAMES PARKER, Assistant Warden; FRANK MURSIER, Major; ALLESON GLIDEWELL, Hearing Officer; LORIS HOLMES, Inmate Grievance Coordinator, individually and his official capacity; MRS. JOYCE YOUNG
,

Defendant s

- Appell ee s

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort

. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 9 : 1 2

- c v

- 00 520

- RBH )

Submitted : December 17, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013

Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Leroy Shaw , Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, DOYLE, O’ROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

LeR oy Shaw appeals the district court ’ s order

accepting t he recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Shaw v.

Byars , No. 9:12

- cv

- 00520

- RBH (D.S.C. Aug. 20, 2013) . We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED