alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 98 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 27958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13615]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6100-2]


Common Sense Initiative Council (CSIC)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification of public advisory for the CSI council meeting, an 
open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, notice is hereby given that the CSI Council will meet on the dates 
and times described below. The meeting is open to the public. Seating 
at the meeting will be on a first-come basis and limited time will be 
provided for public comment. For further information, please contact 
the individual listed below.

Common Sense Initiative Council Meeting--June 9, 1998

    The Common Sense Initiative Council will hold an open meeting on 
Tuesday, June 9, 1998, from 8:30a.m. EST to 5:30p.m. EST. The meeting 
will be held at the Crystal City Sheraton, 1800 Jefferson-Davis 
Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 703-486-1111 or 1-800-325-3535.
    The Council Agenda will focus on a variety of topics including: 
Discussion of five issue papers on Sector-Based Environmental 
Protection (SBEP) which will form the basis for the SBEP Action Plan, a 
Stakeholder Involvement Workgroup report, an update on the PrintSTEP 
project from the Printing Sector Subcommittee, recommendations from the 
Computer and Electronics Sector Subcommittee, discussion of Reinventing 
Environmental Information issues concerning data gaps, data quality, 
and burden reduction, and performance measures for CSI.
    For further information concerning this Common Sense Initiative 
Council meeting, contact Kathleen Bailey, Designated Federal Officer, 
on (202) 260-7417, or email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#086a6961646d712663697c60646d6d66486d786965696164266d7869266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d3b1b2babfb6aafdb8b2a7bbbfb6b6bd93b6a3b2beb2babffdb6a3b2fdb4bca5">[email protected]</span></a>.
    INSPECTION OF SUBCOMMITTEE DOCUMENTS: Documents relating to the 
above Sector Subcommittee announcement will be publicly available at 
the meeting. Thereafter, these documents, together with the official 
minutes for the meeting, will be available for public inspection in 
room 3802M of EPA Headquarters, Common Sense Initiative Staff, 401 M 
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone number 202-260-7417. Common 
Sense Initiative information can be accessed electronically on our web 
site at http.//www.epa.gov/commonsense.

Gregory Ondich,
Acting Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-13615 Filed 5-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
|                                                                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                     
|                                                                                                  
|Price of Cove Point, MD Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Germany (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                  
|Price of Cove Point, MD Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Germany (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                  

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May  | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2023                                                                                                                              | W   |     | W   | W   | 5.56 |     | W   |     |     |     |     |    
|2024                                                                                                                              | W   |     |     | W   |      |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|                                                                                                                                 
|- = 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. 12-8469.

#### Crenshaw *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alfredo Victorial, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 598]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Torres, J.), rendered December 7, 1999, as amended January 26, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree, rape in the first and third degrees, assault in the second degree and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 281/2 to 57 years, unanimously affirmed.

*106Before accepting defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel, the court thoroughly warned him of the risks and disadvantages of proceeding pro se, advised him of the importance of being represented by an attorney, and ascertained that his waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see *People v Arroyo,*98 NY2d 101 [2002]; *People v Providence,*308 AD2d 200 [2003]). Defendant had been found competent after a CPL article 730 examination, and he does not challenge that determination. Accordingly, defendant’s psychiatric condition would not disqualify him from exercising his right of self-representation, because there is a single standard of competency to stand trial and to waive the right to counsel *(Godinez v Moran,*509 US 389 [1993]; *People v Reason,*37 NY2d 351 [1975]; *People v Schoolfield,*196 AD2d 111, 116-118 [1994], *lv denied*83 NY2d 915 [1994]).

The record does not support defendant’s assertion that the court improperly revoked defendant’s pro se status after the trial. On the contrary, the record reveals that defendant’s standby counsel’s participation in a presentence conference and at sentencing was entirely at defendant’s request and with his approval.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Ellerin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
No. 12-7877.

#### Smith *v.*Walker et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              21,905
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        2,691
<ALLOWANCES>                                            53
<INVENTORY>                                            205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    25,932
<PP&E>                                             108,492
<DEPRECIATION>                                      75,855
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      59,250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                8,900
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               488
<OTHER-SE>                                          45,981
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        59,250
<SALES>                                              7,995
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     8,892
<CGS>                                                3,695
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        7,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     323
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      1,132
<INCOME-TAX>                                           300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    832
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                           832
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.17



</TABLE>
Exhibit
4.1


 


	
  

  	
  •

  	
  Ernst & Young LLP

  Chartered Accountants

  Ernst & Young Tower

  1000 440 2 Avenue SW

  	
  •

  	
  Phone:

  Fax:

  	
  403 290-4100

  403 290-4265

  
	
   

  	
  Calgary AB Canada T2P 5E9

  	
   

  



 


 


Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


 


We consent to the use of our reports dated
May 27, 2005, with respect to the financial statements of Meridian Energy
Corporation for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 included in the
Business Acquisition Report of True Energy Inc. dated May 27, 2005 incorporated
by reference in the Registration Statement (Form F-80) and related Information
Circular of True Energy Trust for the registration of its trust units.


 


 





 


Calgary, Alberta, Canada


May 25, 2006
#### Christopher A. Velarde, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[51 NYS3d 73]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered December 11, 2015, which denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that while he was an inmate at Riker’s Island, he was assaulted by a fellow inmate who is not a party to this action. Plaintiff sued the City for the negligence of its corrections officers in failing to stop the assault. When the City joined issue, it asserted CPLR 1601 as an affirmative defense, seeking to apportion damages with the nonparty assailant. Plaintiff then sought leave to amend his complaint to add causes of action under CPLR 1602 (7) and (11), arguing that the City was not entitled to apportion its damages with nonparty tortfeasor since the corrections officer acted with a reckless disregard for plaintiff’s safety and/or in concert with the assailant.

Leave to amend a complaint is typically freely granted, but is committed, however, to the sound discretion of the trial court (see CPLR 3025 [b]; *Davis v South Nassau Communities*Hosp., 26 NY3d 563, 580 [2015]). To obtain leave, a plaintiff must submit evidentiary proof of the kind that would be admissible on a motion for summary judgment (see *American Theatre for the Performing Arts, Inc. v Consolidated Credit Corp.,*45 AD3d 506 [1st Dept 2007]). Here, plaintiff’s motion was properly denied since his purported proof was insufficient to show that the correction officers were anything more than negligent.

Concur — Renwick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels, Fein-man and Webber, JJ.
|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                     
|View History: Annual                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                               
|View History:                                                                      
|                                                                                   
|Kentuckey Natural Gas Supplemental Gas - Synthetic Natural Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                   
|                                                                                   
|Kentuckey Natural Gas Supplemental Gas - Synthetic Natural Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 17     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Exhibit 31-18**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, David E. Meador, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 of MichiganConsolidated Gas Company;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. (Intentionally omitted)  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting .   /s/ DAVID E. MEADOR Date: August 4, 2005   David E. Meador  Executive Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer of  Michigan Consolidated Gas Company
EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of Southwest Bancorporation of Texas, Inc. and Subsidiary on Form S-8 (File Nos.
333-21619, 333-27891 and 333-33533) of our reports, dated February 10, 1998, on
our audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Southwest Bancorporation of Texas, Inc. and Subsidiary as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996 and for the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996, and
1995, which reports are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

                                                COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Houston, Texas
March 13, 1998
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Fuchsberg *&*Fuchsberg et al., Appellants, and Seymour Fuchsberg et al., Respondents.

[767 NYS2d 623]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered December 2, 2002, which denied petitioners’ motion to bar as untimely the arbitration of certain claims arising from a partnership agreement, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Respondent Seymour Fuchsberg’s accounting claim, under Partnership Law § 74, was both colorable and timely. The questions whether entitlement to an accounting was waived under the partnership agreement by the manner of respondent Seymour’s departure from the firm, and whether that departure amounted to simply the termination of a partner or dissolution of the entire partnership, are appropriate for arbitration.

*159The general reference to limitations in commencing arbitration proceedings (CPLR 7502 [b]) focuses on the entire complex of facts, and does not bar a proceeding where one elective remedy might be untimely while an alternative is still viable *(Matter of Paver & Wildfoerster [Catholic High School Assn.],*38 NY2d 669 [1976]). Where several discrete theories are asserted, any one of which is still timely, all related claims should be considered timely, at least to the extent of allowing the arbitrator to determine the timeliness question on each such theory (see Siegel, NY Prac § 590, at 995 [3d ed]). The facts underlying each of these discrete claims—for breach of contract, conversion, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty—are all intertwined with and directly related to Seymour’s demand for an accounting under Partnership Law § 74. This demand is not defeated by the fact that some of the related claims date back as much as 27 years, since he need only demonstrate that at those times there was “transaction of business by the partnership producing profits and losses to be accounted for” *(Missan v Schoenfeld,*95 AD2d 198, 209 [1983], *appeal dismissed*60 NY2d 860 [1983]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Williams, JJ.
#### Com. v. Reddy

09/29/2015

229 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 121 A.3d 1139
#### People ex rel. Wright v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision

App Div, 3d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 67452(U)

denied
#### Com. v. Wingfield 49

03/08/2016

594 EAL (2015)

49

. Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 133 A.3d 79
#### 2390 Creston Holdings LLC et al., Appellants, v Oliver Bivins, II, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[51 NYS3d 61]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kelly O’Neill Levy, J.), entered on or about January 5, 2016, which granted defendant Oliver Bivens, II’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him individually and as administrator of the Estate of Loma M. Bivins, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant established prima facie that plaintiffs’ predecessor in interest, Capital One, N.A., intentionally waived its right to acceleration of the loan with interest at the default rate and reinstated the loan *(see Alsens Am. Portland Cement Works v Degnon Contr. Co.,*222 NY 34, 37 [1917]). Capital One’s October 22, 2102 statement to the decedent borrower’s estate, issued after receiving defendant’s payment of the amount of the monthly installments outstanding, shows an “[adjustment” to the estate’s account consisting of a credit of the difference between the amount of accrued interest at the default rate and the amount at the note rate, less the principal *416payment for October 2012. Capital One subsequently sent the estate 20 consecutive invoices consistent with the original loan terms and inconsistent with a demand for full payment of the principal and interest at the default rate. In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to Capital One’s intent in so acting.

Even if the waiver constituted a loan modification, which pursuant to the note and mortgage was required to be “in writing,” the motion court correctly found that “Capital One expressly reversed the default interest rate and the default interest charges” *(compare e.g. Bercy Invs. v Sun,*239 AD2d 161 [1st Dept 1997] [no evidence of relinquishment of right to accelerate loans]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.
No. 12-6970.

No. 12-7221.

No. 12-7257.

No. 12-7442.

No. 12-8015.

#### Bayene *v.*Farmland Foods, Inc., Gibson *v.*Florida, Brown *v.*Gray, Commandant, United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Bower *v.*Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Smith *v.*United States,

*ante,*p. 1102;

*ante,*p. 1129;

*ante,*p. 1107;

*ante,*p. 1147; and

*ante,*p. 1180. Petitions for rehearing denied.