alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15120]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Electrical and Communications Systems; 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Electrical and Communications 
Systems (1196).
    Date & Time: June 25-26, 1998; 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 
675, Arlington, VA.
    Type of meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Rajinder Khosla, Program Director, Physical 
Foundation of Enabling Technologies, Division of Electrical and 
Communications Systems, NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230 
703/306-1339.
    Purpose of meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Physical Foundation of Enabling 
Technologies proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and 
(b) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: June 2, 1998.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-15120 Filed 6-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
**Exhibit
      32.1**








**SECTION
      906 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350**




I,
      A.
      Bruce O’Connor, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the periodic
      report being filed herewith containing financial statements fully complies
      with
      the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that information contained in said
      periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of Middlesex Water Company for the period
      covered by said periodic report.













/s/
                A. Bruce O’ConnorA.
                Bruce O’ConnorChief
                Financial Officer








Date:   May
      8, 2007














A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Middlesex Water Company and will be retained by Middlesex Water Company and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          73,516
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,043,423
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,545,752
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,636,020
<PP&E>                                       5,219,610
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,664,540
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,147,673
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,433,740
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,832
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,169,934
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,147,673
<SALES>                                     19,332,922
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,332,922
<CGS>                                       11,417,111
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,178,439
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             469,355
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (673,727)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   256,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (417,727)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (417,727)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.34)


</TABLE>
Order entered July 10, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00280-CR

MICHAEL BLOOM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court of Appeals No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MC-R-0019-D

ORDER

On July 9, 2014 Michael Bloom filed a “Motion to Stay Mandate and Nullify Void 

Judgment” in the above cause. The mandate in this cause issued on June 30, 2014. Accordingly, 

we construe Bloom’s request to stay the mandate as a request to withdraw the mandate. Bloom’s 

motion is DENIED.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
#### Francisca Fernandez, Appellant, v Emmanuel D. Hernandez et al., Respondents.

[57 NYS3d 469]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered January 15, 2016, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the threshold issue of serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants made a prima facie showing that plaintiff did not suffer significant or permanent limitations to her lumbar spine or knees as a result of the accident. Defendants submitted the affirmed report of an orthopedic surgeon who found normal ranges of motion, negative objective test results, and resolved sprains, strains, and contusions to those body parts *(see Reyes v Se Park,*127 AD3d 459, 460 [1st Dept 2015]). Defendants also relied on plaintiff’s own medical records showing *582that the claimed injuries were the result of preexisting degeneration *(see Alvarez v NYLL Mgt. Ltd.,*120 AD3d 1043, 1044 [1st Dept 2014], *affd*24 NY3d 1191 [2015]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact. Plaintiff offered no admissible medical evidence concerning her lumbar spine. Even if her unaffirmed medical records were considered, they acknowledged the existence of degeneration in her spine, but did not address the degeneration or explain why it was not the cause of any symptoms (see *Alvarez,*120 AD3d at 1044). Further, the affirmed report of her orthopedist was insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to plaintiff’s knees because the range of motion findings were not compared to any normal value (see *Rickert v Diaz,*112 AD3d 451, 452 [1st Dept 2013]). The finding of “tears, standing alone, without any evidence of limitations, [was] insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether a serious injury exists” *(Acosta v Zulu Servs., Inc.,*129 AD3d 640, 640 [1st Dept 2015]). In addition, the orthopedist did not address the findings of degeneration found in plaintiff’s own medical records *(Alvarez,*120 AD3d at 1044). Moreover, plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her cessation of all medical treatment after a brief three-month course of physical therapy *(see Green v Domino’s Pizza, LLC,*140 AD3d 546, 547 [1st Dept 2016]).

Plaintiff did not plead a significant disfigurement claim and, in any event, defendants’ expert found no scarring upon examination and plaintiff’s own medical records show no evidence of scarring to the left knee that was “unattractive [or] objectionable,” much less “the subject of pity or scorn,” as required to establish significant disfigurement *(Sidibe v Cordero,*79 AD3d 536, 536 [1st Dept 2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *Aguilar v Hicks,*9 AD3d 318, 319 [1st Dept 2004]).

Lastly, defendants made a prima facie showing that plaintiff did not suffer a 90/180-day injury, given her admission in the bill of particulars that she was only confined to her bed or home for a period of five weeks *(see Komina v Gil,*107 AD3d 596, 597 [1st Dept 2013]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Richter, Feinman, Webber and Kahn, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harry Cassaberry, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 871]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (W. Miller, J.), rendered January 19, 2016, convicting him of petit larceny, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see id.; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

Dillon, J.P., Sgroi, Maltese, Barros and Christopher, JJ., concur.
No. 12-807.

#### Walliser *v.*May.

Ct. App. Ariz. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Cer-tiorari denied.
# Fall 2020 Ohio State University Economics Virtual Career Fair

/ Published Oct. 15, 2020
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime attended the last virtual career fair of fiscal year 2020 at The Ohio State University Economics Virtual Career Fair.  The event was hosted Sept. 30 using the Handshake virtual recruiting platform.Handshake partners with more than 1,000 colleges and universities to help students find jobs. This is just one of the many virtual platforms being used during COVID-19 to recruit highly qualified candidates when in-person events are not possible. Students were given the opportunity to attend either a 30-minute virtual group session or schedule a one-on-one virtual session with a recruiter to find out more about DLA Land and Maritime.  These sessions led to questions about what opportunities were available, what a typical day is like at DLA, benefits and how COVID affected the workplace.  

DLA Land and Maritime finished their recruiting efforts strong with five virtual events in September and 19 for the fiscal year. There are six virtual career fairs already scheduled for the new fiscal year.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15225]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-236-000]


Discovery Gas Transmission LLC; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

June 3, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 1, 1998, Discovery Gas Transmission LLC 
(Discovery) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective 
July 1, 1998:

First Revised Sheet No. 33
First Revised Sheet No. 44
First Revised Sheet No. 53

    Discovery states that the revised tariff sheets clarify the timing 
of changes to the retention percentage under Discovery's Lost and 
Unaccounted for Gas provision in its FT-1, FT-2, and IT Rate Schedules. 
Since the first flow of gas did not occur until January 1998, Discovery 
does not have adequate information at this time upon which to base a 
revision of this rate. In order to have a full year of data on which to 
determine actual system losses, Discovery proposes to clarify each of 
its rate schedules as follows: (1) the initial retention rate of 0.5% 
will be effective until July 1, 1998, and (2) beginning July 1, 1999, 
the retention rate will be revised annually, if necessary, based on the 
data from the previous calendar year.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a 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 and 
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 protestants parties to 
the proceedings. 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.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15225 Filed 6-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
|                                                                                               
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                 
|View History:                                                                                  
|                                                                                               
|Sabine Pass, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports Price to Taiwan (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                               
|                                                                                               
|Sabine Pass, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports Price to Taiwan (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | 4.77   | 6.51   | 4.54  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5.28   | 6.70   | 10.79  | 6.13   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
1

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3805

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Minnesota.

Harold Thomas Victor, Jr., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 30, 2004

Filed: September 2, 2004 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Harold Victor (Victor) pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and 924(e). The district

court1

 sentenced him as an armed career criminal to the statutory minimum of 180

months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Victor’s counsel

moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

challenging the denial of motions to suppress evidence and statements, and Victor’s

sentence. 
-2-

As part of his plea agreement, Victor explicitly waived his right to pursue any

pretrial issues he raised or could have raised, his right to appeal under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3742 any lawful sentence not exceeding 210 months imprisonment, and his right

to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Because the record demonstrates Victor’s plea and

plea agreement were voluntary and he understood he was waiving his appellate rights,

his sentence is consistent with the plea agreement, and no miscarriage of justice

would result from enforcing the appeal waiver, we enforce the waiver and dismiss

this appeal. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-91 (8th Cir. 2003) (en

banc). 

We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
No. 12-8740.

#### Scally *v.*Texas State Board of Medical Examiners.

Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied.
160 A.3d 708

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. S.P., DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

February 13, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.
## Supplementary Information #2

Docket ID: FAA

- 2014

- 0481

Douglas Trudeau, Associate Broker

Tierra Antiguea Realty

1650 E Rive r Road, Suite 202

Tucson, AZ 85718

Office: (520) 544

- 2335

Mobile: (520) 954

- 2209

Email: Doug@TheTrudeauGroup.com

UAS Clarification :

DJI Phantom 2 Vision +

S erial Number: PH645349490

Height limitation set for maximum of 300 f eet AGL

R a dius distance from controller set for maximum of 1000 feet

Both to aid in direct line of site visual observation.

Current firmware upgrades for

 Main Controller

 GPS

 Receiver

 Battery

 Zen IMU

Airman Certification:

Petitioner requests consideration for 120 day §63.13 Tempor ary Certificate to allow Petitioner time to

attain a Private Airman Certificate if required , or to allow FAA time to include minimal UAS Airman

Certification as appropriate to this and like petitions.

Special Consideration:

Petitioner requests FAA to consider adding , if permitted by law, U AS Airman Certification categories at

determined number of levels based on but not limited to *

 UAS

o Size

o Weighto Speed

o Design

o Hover capability

o Limitation

o Maximum flight duration

o Power source requiring combustible fuel or electric

o Capabilities

o Complexity

o Sophistication

o Other Considerations

 PIC

o Written exam requirements

o Competency with specified UAS

o Medical Certification

* Intent of consideration is that small er , lighter, less complicated UAS with lower risk would require

lower standards, while progressively increasing standards for larger, heavier, faster UAS that pose higher

risk. Example c ould be Level I under 4 lbs 15 oz lbs , Level II 5

- 9 lbs 15 oz , Level III 10

- 19 lbs 15 oz , and

Level IV greater than 20 lbs

.
No. 12-8387.

#### Lewis *v.*Smith.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JAKE DOUGLAS BYLSMA

PETITION OF: AARON DIEGO MARTIN,
ESQUIRE :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 119 MM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30 th day of November , 2023, in consideration of the Application

to Withdraw as Counsel, this matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of

Adams County for that court to determine whether to permit Attorney Aaron Diego Martin

to withdraw. If present counsel is granted leave to withdraw, the court is to resolve

whether to allow Jake Douglas Bylsma to proceed pro se

.

The Court of Common Pleas of Adams County is DIRECTED to enter its order on

remand within 90 days and to promptly notify this Court of its determi nation.
|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                       
|View History:                                                                        
|                                                                                     
|Connecticut Heat Content of Natural Gas Deliveries to Consumers  (BTU per Cubic Foot)
|                                                                                     
|                                                                                     
|Connecticut Heat Content of Natural Gas Deliveries to Consumers  (BTU per Cubic Foot)
|                                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1,019  | 1,018  | 1,019 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,022  | 1,026  | 1,031  | 1,024  | 1,027  | 1,027  | 1,027  | 1,028  | 1,029  | 1,030 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,030  | 1,029  | 1,030  | 1,030  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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