alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33640-33641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16298]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-2494-000]


ESI Vansycle Partners, L.P.; Notice of Issuance of Order

June 15, 1998.
    ESI Vansycle Partners. L.P. (ESI), an affiliate of Florida Power & 
Light Company, filed an application for authorization to engage in 
wholesale power sales at market-based rates, and for certain waivers 
and authorizations. In particular, ESI requested that the Commission 
grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of 
securities and assumptions of liabilities by ESI. On June 2, 1998, the 
Commission issued an Order Conditionally Accepting for Filing Proposed 
Market-Based Rates (Order), in the above-docketed proceeding.
    The Commission's June 2, 1998 Order granted the request for blanket 
approval under Part 34, subject to the conditions found in Ordering 
Paragraphs (F), (G), and (I):
    (F) Within 30 days of the date of this order, any person desiring 
to be heard or to protest the Commission's blanket approval of 
issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities by ESI should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with

[[Page 33641]]

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214.
    (g) Absent a request to be herd within the period set forth in 
Ordering Paragraph (F) above, ESI is hereby authorized, pursuant to 
Section 204 of the FPA, to issue securities and assume obligations and 
liabilities as guarantor, indorser, surety or otherwise in respect of 
any security of another person; provided that such issue or assumption 
is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of ESI, 
compatible with the public interest, and reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    (I) The Commission reserves the right to modify this order to 
require a further showing that neither public nor private interests 
will be adversely affected by continued Commission approval of ESI's 
issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities * * *.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protest, as set forth above, is July 2, 1998.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16298 Filed 6-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
   2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included 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 periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and
Rule 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
   Date: December 22, 2010
    /s/ Kenneth L. HignettKenneth L. HignettSenior Vice President, Chief
Financial
Officer and Secretary 19
#### Frees v. W.C.A.B. (County of Berks)

05/03/2016

719 MAL (2015)

Denied

No. 1714 CD 2014
No. 10-5330.

#### Mark Garraway, Petitioner v. William Lee, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility.

562 U.S. 954, 131 S. Ct. 278,

178 L. Ed. 2d 252,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7791,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 591 F.3d 72.
yearID sourceTypeID sourceTypePopulation

2015 11 5981

2015 21 64222

2015 31 46473

2015 32 15526

2015 41 82

2015 42 43

2015 43 548

2015 51 36

2015 52 3212

2015 53 471

2015 54 759

2015 61 566

2015 62 746
#### Williams, Matter of, v City of New York

1st Dept: 142 AD3d 901

granted
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

No. DA 20-0312

LARRY REINLASODER,

Appellant and Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF COLSTRIP, Mayor John 

Williams, STATE OF MONTANA, 

Judicial Branch, Court Administrator, 

Does I - V.

Appellees and Defendants.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellant is granted an extension of time to 

and including October 17, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file his 

Opening Brief.

Dated this _____ day of September, 2020.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 15 2020

09/15/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0312
No. 10-5716.

#### Mars Webb, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 935, 131 S. Ct. 338,

178 L. Ed. 2d 220,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7156.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
#### Com. v. Woodward

09/06/2016

111 WAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 141 A.3d 606
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

RALPH CARL GILBERT, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2401

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed May 18, 2018.

 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco 

County; Mary M. Handsel, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, BLACK, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jamie Turner, Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 249]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J.), rendered November 30, 2015, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first and second degrees, and three counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). “Defendant’s accomplice liability could reasonably be inferred from the chain of events, which supports the inference that defendant intentionally took part in the [crime] by leading the victim . . . into a trap” *(People v Thomas,*113 AD3d 447, 447 [1st Dept 2014] [citation omitted], *lv denied*22 NY3d 1159 [2014]; *see also People v Ficarrota,*91 NY2d 244, 249-250 [1997]). Defend*422ant’s theory that she unwittingly helped robbers enter the victim’s apartment is implausible, as well as being incompatible with her behavior during and after the crime.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion, which was the only remedy requested, when a lone juror may have briefly seen defendant in restraints. “[A] jury’s brief and inadvertent viewing of a defendant in handcuffs does not warrant reversal” *(People v McCollough,*135 AD3d 490, 490 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*27 NY3d 1002 [2016]). Moreover, the juror assured the court that she could remain impartial.

Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by testimony that a codefendant’s nickname was “Two Guns,” and that defendant called this codefendant, who was her boyfriend, by that nickname. This evidence did not suggest that defendant, herself, had committed any uncharged crimes, and the nickname was not particularly inflammatory.

The court addressed the concerns of some jurors that audience members were taking photographs of them by conducting a thorough inquiry and determining that while some audience members had cell phones, none of those phones contained photographs of the courtroom.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Gesmer and Oing, JJ.
No. 09-11416.

#### Julius K. Edwards, Petitioner v. Roy Cooper, Attorney General of North Carolina.

562 U.S. 879, 131 S. Ct. 194,

178 L. Ed. 2d 117,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6813.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 363 Fed. Appx. 251.
# Leadership changes hands at DLA Distribution Tobyhanna 

/ Published May 18, 2023
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Army Lt. Col. Allen J. Luna took command of Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, from outgoing commander Army Lt. Col. Robert West during a change of command ceremony May 18. DLA Distribution Commander, Navy Rear Adm. Grafton D. Chase, Jr., officiated the ceremony.

“Lt. Col. West has truly been the force of positive change at Tobyhanna and developed an outstanding long-range plan,” said Chase.

Under West’s leadership DLA Distribution Tobyhanna implemented the new Warehouse Management System, a major modernization effort that will improve warehousing, depot and transportation functions and processes.

West also greatly enhanced workplace safety and culture by proactively engaging leadership at every level in the workplace. Leading through the COVID-19 pandemic, West created a workplace culture focused on safety and security that kept the workforce safe without any disruptions to supporting the warfighter.

For his many accomplishments as commander of DDTP, West was awarded the Defense Meritorious Service Medal.

Incoming commander Luna is a native of Roy, Washington. He enlisted in the Army Reserve as an automated logistics specialist in October 2000. He received his commission from the University of Washington’s Army ROTC program in May 2004. He earned his bachelor’s degree in political science and was commissioned in the Regular Army as a Quartermaster officer. In 2015, he earned his master’s in business administration from Strayer University.

Before taking command, Luna was the brigade executive officer for Army Headquarters, Materiel Support Command – South Korea, where he managed a brigade staff responsible for planning and sustainment for area logistics and was responsible for multiple theater level exercise support.

Luna has deployed twice to Iraq and served as a platoon leader.

His decorations and badges include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal and the Army Achievement Medal.

During his remarks, Chase praised the DDTP workforce for their hard work, dedication and commitment to supporting the massive DOD communications and electronics industry. Through a partnership with Tobyhanna Army Depot, DDTP supports hundreds of systems that are utilized by virtually every unit in the force structure and impact every aspect of the modern battlefield.
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 of Ameritrans Capital Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Gary C. Granoff, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      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/ Gary C. Granoff
-------------------
Gary C. Granoff
President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer

November 14, 2002


                                      -17-
No. 10-5188.

#### Jaime Gonzalez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 908, 131 S. Ct. 256,

178 L. Ed. 2d 169,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7391.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Same case below, 371 Fed. Appx. 202.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kiermer Tarver, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 391]

Rose, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Ryan, J.), rendered June 29, 2001, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of burglary in the second degree.

This conviction stems from an incident late in the evening on December 21, 2000, when defendant and two other men forced their way into the victim’s apartment and threatened him with a shotgun. In addition to describing this incident, the victim *969was permitted to testify, over defendant’s objection, to an incident that occurred two days earlier when defendant brandished a shotgun and a knife and threatened to kill the victim.* County Court sentenced defendant as a second felony offender to a prison term of eight years.

On appeal, defendant argues that County Court erred by permitting testimony concerning the earlier threat because it was inadmissible evidence of a prior uncharged crime offered solely to raise an inference that he has a criminal propensity or bad character *(see People v Rojas,*97 NY2d 32, 36-37 [2001]; *People v Blair,*90 NY2d 1003, 1004-1005 [1997]; *People v Molineux,*168 NY 264, 291 [1901]). However, uncharged crimes or bad acts may be admitted where they fall within the classic *Molineux*exceptions (see *People v Molineux, supra*at 293) or are inextricably interwoven with the charged crimes, provide necessary background or complete a witness’s narrative (see *People v Morales,*301 AD2d 368, 368 [2003], *lv denied*99 NY2d 617 [2003]; *People v Shannon [Thompson],*273 AD2d 505, 507 [2000], *lvs denied*95 NY2d 892, 893 [2000]; *People v Crossland,*251 AD2d 509, 510 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 895 [1998]).

Here, evidence of the earlier confrontation provided a motive for the charged criminal conduct, demonstrated defendant’s intent on the second occasion, and put the later threatening interaction between defendant and the victim into the proper context for the jury. Its probative and explanatory value clearly outweighed the potential prejudice to defendant, particularly since the later incident can readily be viewed as a continuation of the confrontation two days earlier.

Defendant’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*

 In her brief, defendant’s counsel repeatedly misstates that these incidents occurred “a few weeks apart.”
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_______ _______ __________ No. ACM 3 9854 (f rev)

_______ _______ __________ UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Cody M. BROWN Senior Airman ( E

- 4 ) , U.S. Air Force, Appellant

_______ _______ __________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Upon Further Review
Decided 29 August 202 2

_______ _______ __________ Military Judge: Colin P. Eichenberger ; Charles G. Warren (post

- trial)

. S entence : Sentence adjudged on 3 December 2019 by G CM convened at Joint Base Lewis

- McChord
, Washington. Sentence entered by military judge on 2 3 January 2020 and re

- entered on 29 January 2020 and again

on 21 September 2021 : Dishonorable discharge, confinement for 6 months
, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to E

- 1. For Appellant: Major Benjamin H. DeYoung , U SAF ; Major Eshawn R. Rawlley , USAF

. For Appellee: Major John P. Patera, USAF ; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire

. Before JOHNSON
, KEY , and ANNEXSTAD
, Appellate Military Judges

.

_______ _______ __________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.

_______ _______ __________ PER CURIAM : Appellant’s case is before this court a second time. Our court previously remanded this case to the Chief Trial Judge, Air Force Trial Judiciary, to re-United States v. Brown , No. ACM 3 9854 (f rev)

2 solve Appellant’s sole assignment of error
, a substantial issue with the convening authority’s decision memorandum, as the action taken on Appellant’s adjudged sentence was ambiguous and incomplete. The convening authority subsequently approved Appellant’s sentence, resulting in a new entry of judgment and correcting the error Appellant raised

. The findings and sentence as entered are correc t in law and fact, and noerror materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d), Manual for Courts

Martial, United States (2019 ed.). Accordingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

. *

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court

* We note that in addition to a correct, unredacted “Second Corrected Copy” of the entry of judgment dated 21 September 2021, the record also contains a partially redacted “Second Corrected Copy” with the same date. However, this partially redacted version fails to redact the victim’s name at certain points in the Specification, and also employs incorrect initials in place of the victim’s name at other points. We find these errors in the partially redacted version do not impair our ability to review and affi rm the findings and sentence.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.81

                       Shareholder's Voting Rights Proxy Agreement-Participation
                                          Letter of Shanghai Jiefang Focus Media

                   ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER FOR PARTICIPATION OF
                   SHAREHOLDERS' VOTING RIGHTS PROXY AGREEMENT

SHANGHAI FOCUS MEDIA ADVERTISEMENT CO., LTD., (registered address: Room 1003 F,
No.1027, Changning Road, Changning District, Shanghai) (hereinafter the
"PARTICIPATING SHAREHOLDER"), and SHANGHAI JIEFANG FOCUS MEDIA ADVERTISEMENT
CO., LTD. (hereinafter the "PARTICIPATED TARGET COMPANY"), as independent party,
hereby agree to participate in the Shareholders' Voting Rights Proxy Agreement
among Focus Media Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "FOCUS MEDIA
TECHNOLOGY"), Shanghai Focus Media Advertisement Co., Ltd. and other relevant
parties (hereinafter the "PROXY AGREEMENT") dated March 28 2005. Participating
Shareholder and Participated Target Company agree to entrust the Trustees
designated by Focus Media Technology to exercise the voting rights in
Participated Target Company in respect of 60% of the equity interest in the
registered capital of Participated Target Company held by the Participating
Shareholder as of the date of this Acknowledgement Letter, on behalf of
Participating Shareholder.

Once this Acknowledgement Letter is executed by the Participating Shareholder
and Participated Target Company, Participating Shareholder and Participated
Target Company shall be deemed to have made the same undertakings and warranties
with those of the Shareholders and Target Companies under the Proxy Agreement
(to the extent that is related and applicable to Participating Shareholder and
Participated Target Company), agreed to respectively perform the obligations of
the Shareholders and Target Companies stipulated in the Proxy Agreement (to the
extent that is related and applicable to Participating Shareholder and
Participated Target Company), and acknowledged the rights and obligations of the
Parties under the Proxy Agreement.

<PAGE>

                       Shareholder's Voting Rights Proxy Agreement-Participation
                                          Letter of Shanghai Jiefang Focus Media

                                [EXECUTION PAGE]

SHANGHAI FOCUS MEDIA ADVERISEMENT CO., LTD.
(Company chop)

Signature by:    /s/ Jason Nanchun Jiang
              -----------------------------
Name: Jason Nanchun Jiang
Position: Authorized Representative
Date: May 22, 2006

SHANGHAI JIEFANG FOCUS MEDIA ADVERTISEMENT CO., LTD.
(Company chop)

Signature by:    /s/ Jason Nanchun Jiang
              -----------------------------
Name: Jason Nanchun Jiang
Position: Authorized Representative
Date: May 22, 2006

FOCUS MEDIA TECHNOLOGY (SHANGHAI) CO., LTD.
(Company chop)

Signature by:    /s/ Jason Nanchun Jiang
              -----------------------------
Name: Jason Nanchun Jiang
Position: Authorized Representative
Date: May 22, 2006
No. 10-6373.

#### Josue Osmaro Garcia-Ochoa, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 975, 131 S. Ct. 494,

178 L. Ed. 2d 313,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7886.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 607 F.3d 371.
No. 10-5068.

#### Alexis De La Cruz Suarez, aka Alexis de la Cruz, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 902, 131 S. Ct. 393,

178 L. Ed. 2d 157,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6117.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 601 F.3d 1202.
No. 12-7217.

#### In re Bourgeois.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.