alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1686]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-1168-000]


UtiliCorp United Inc.; Notice of Filing

January 20, 1998.
    Take notice that on December 22, 1997, UtiliCorp United Inc. 
(UtiliCorp) filed service agreements with Continental Energy Services 
for service under its Short-Term Firm Point-to-Point open access 
service tariff for its operating divisions, Missouri Public Service, 
WestPlains Energy-Kansas and WestPlains Energy-Colorado.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 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 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before February 2, 1998. 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. 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.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1686 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### People v Moors

3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1207 (Ulster)

denied 8/11/16 (Pigott, J.)
No. 10-353.

#### Katherine Crase, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 982, 131 S. Ct. 427,

178 L. Ed. 2d 324,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8148.

October 18, 2010.

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

Same case below, 375 Fed. Appx. 948.
#### Ronald Holm et al., Appellants, v Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Defendant, and B & Q Construction Corp. et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[768 NYS2d 360]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated August 22, 2002, as granted those branches of the separate motions of the defendants B & Q Construction Corp. and Halcyon Construction Corp. which were to dismiss the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and § 200 and common-law negligence insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, *with one bill of costs.*

Under the facts of this case the injured plaintiff was not a *587person entitled to the protection of the Labor Law. He was neither “permitted or suffered to work on a building or structure” *(Mordkofsky v V.C.V. Dev. Corp.,*76 NY2d 573, 576 [1990] [internal quotation marks omitted]), nor was he performing work necessary and incidental to the erection or repair of a building or structure *(see Lombardi v Stout,*80 NY2d 290 [1992]). Accordingly, the Labor Law claims against the respondents, B & Q Construction Corp. and Halcyon Construction Corp., were properly dismissed *(see Kopp v Flagg Props.,*302 AD2d 367, 367-368 [2003]).

Additionally, the common-law negligence claim was also properly dismissed against the respondents since they established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, and in response, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of material fact to rebut this prima facie showing *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *Grgas v Lehrer McGovern Bovis,*307 AD2d 982, 983 [2003]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, *J.P.,*Schmidt, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 31, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00222

- CR

Jacob Cory GONZALES

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR8528A

Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The

Appellant ’ s brief is due January 16, 2015.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 31st day of December, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
_________________________________________ 

 

_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 10, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 134445 Maura D. Corrigan 

134446 Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

ERIC A. BRAVERMAN, Successor Personal 

Representative of the Estate of Patricia Swann, 

Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 134445, 134446 

v COA: 264029, 264091 

Wayne CC: 05-502345-NH 

GARDEN CITY HOSPITAL, a/k/a GARDEN 

CITY HOSPITAL, OSTEOPATHIC, 

 Defendant, 

and 

JOHN R. SCHAIRER, D.O., GARY 

YASHINSKY, M.D., ABHINA V. RAINA, M.D., 

and PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL 

CENTERS, INC., 

 Defendants-Appellants. 

On order of the Court, the motion by plaintiff-appellee to strike the brief on 

appeal of Garden City Hospital is considered, and it is DENIED. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 10, 2008 

 Clerk
#### Karen Cullin, Appellant, v Keith Lynch et al., Respondents.

[48 NYS3d 711]

In an action to recover damages for slander and libel, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Asher, J.), entered December 1, 2014, which denied her motion for leave to renew her opposition to those branches of the defendants’ separate motions pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) which were to dismiss the cause of action alleging libel insofar as asserted against each of them, which were granted in a prior order of the same court dated April 5, 2012.

Ordered that the order entered December 1, 2014, is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

For a movant to prevail on a motion for leave to renew, the motion “must be (1) based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination, and (2) set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” *(Cioffi v S.M. Foods, Inc.,*142 AD3d 526, 529 [2016], quoting *Matter of Nelson v Allstate Ins. Co.,*73 AD3d 929, 929 [2010]; *see*CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; *Central Mtge. Co. v Resheff,*136 AD3d 962, 963 [2016]; *Deutsche Bank Trust Co. v Ghaness,*100 AD3d 585, 585-586 [2012]; *Jovanovic v Jovanovic,*96 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2012]). Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew, inasmuch as the newly submitted evidence would not have changed the prior determination *(see Weisz v Weisz,*123 AD3d 917, 919 [2014]; *cf. Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc.,*48 AD3d 389, 391 [2008]).

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
No. 10-6518.

#### Allen M. O. E. Hitchcock, III, Petitioner v. Andrew Jackson, Warden.

562 U.S. 1033, 131 S. Ct. 575,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8789,

178 L. Ed. 2d 420,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
No. 10-5464.

#### Sherwin Perkins, Petitioner v. Thomas Ammons, Warden.

562 U.S. 1027, 131 S. Ct. 567,

178 L. Ed. 2d 412,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8803.

November 8, 2010.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 177 L. Ed. 2d 130 (2010).

Same case below, 366 Fed. Appx. 86.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15862]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Rhode Island Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Rhode Island Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 
5:00 p.m. and adjourn at 8:30 p.m. on July 8, 1998, at the Office of 
Dr. Dorothy Zimmering, 12 Chapin Road, Barrington, Rhode Island 02906. 
The Committee will 1) review and discuss a preliminary summary of the 
transcript of its consultation held February 9, 1998, on the topic, 
``An Examination of the Impact of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 on Legal Immigrants in Rhode 
Island,'' and 2) make plans for future events.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Committee Chairperson Olga Noguera, 
401-464-2130, or Ki-Taek Chun, Director of the Eastern Regional Office, 
202-376-7533 (TDD 202-376-8116). Hearing-impaired persons who will 
attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language 
interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) 
working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, June 9, 1998.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 98-15862 Filed 6-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Page 455 (Redline/strikeout version).

In a separate submission reviewer provided EPA staff with data on 7 examples of modifications to fossil 

steam EGUs that resulted in unit capacity increases ranging from 8% to 20%. Reviewer hopes that these 

data will provide a rationale for strengthening the technical basis for the “large modification” threshold. 

Reviewer found the technical basis for the 10% “large modification” threshold to be unclear given the 

current explanation and examples that are included in the Preamble, and suggests clarifying. In addition, 

Reviewer would be happy to consult with EPA to determine and strengthen the technical basis for an 

appropriate “large modification” threshold. 

Reviewer also notes that the modifications undertaken at AmerenUE’s Labadie Plant were completed 

over an 11 year period from 1992 to 2003, and that on an individual basis, each specific incremental 

modification likely resulted in a unit capacity change well below the 10% “large modification” threshold. 

As such, reviewer requests clarification as to whether a “large modification” must be completed in a 

particular period of time, and suggests that EPA clarify the time frame in which a modification must be 

completed in the Preamble. Reviewer also recommends limiting the actions that constitute a 

modification to a short time period, and revisiting the “large modification” threshold accordingly. 

In addition, reviewer notes that changing coal types from bituminous to subbituminous coal was one of 

the modifications carried out at the AmerenUE Labadie Plant. Reviewer found it confusing that changing 

coal type was included in this example of a “large modification” in the Preamble. If reviewer’s 

understanding that a modification must be a physical change to the EGU that increases capacity and 

allows a unit to burn more fuel is correct, then changing coal type does not satisfy this criterion. As such, 

reviewer suggests that the reference to changing coal type be caveated with a clarification indicating 

that changing coal type does not constitute an EGU modification.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2016-4233 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2016-CE-003-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
# C_2013226EN.01002701.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/27

---

Action brought on 21 June 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-57/13)

(2013/C 226/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision fixing the bonus on the applicant’s pension rights acquired before his entry into service at the Commission under the new GIP and of the decision rejecting his claim.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 8 January 2013 calculating the bonus on the applicant’s pension rights acquired before his entry into service at the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 8 January 2013 calculating the bonus on the applicant’s pension rights acquired before his entry into service at the Commission;

| — | In so far as it is necessary, annul the decision rejecting his claim of 12 March 2013 seeking the application of the GIP and actuarial rates in force at the time when he made his application to transfer his pension rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

In so far as it is necessary, annul the decision rejecting his claim of 12 March 2013 seeking the application of the GIP and actuarial rates in force at the time when he made his application to transfer his pension rights;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
#### Rimrock High Income Plus (Master) Fund, Ltd., et al., Appellants, v Avanti Communications Group PLC et al., Respondents.

[69 NYS3d 287]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered September 21, 2017, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss as to the first cause of action, for breach of contract, and denied the motion as to the second cause of action, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion in its entirety, and, otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiffs, holders of certain notes, claim that defendants breached an indenture issued by defendant Avanti Communications Group PLC. The indenture contains a “no action” clause, which provides that no noteholder may pursue any remedy with respect to the indenture or notes unless certain specified conditions are met.

Plaintiffs failed to comply with the no action clause, and thus lack standing to pursue their claims *(Quadrant Structured Prods. Co., Ltd. v Vertin,*23 NY3d 549, 560-561 [2014]; *STS Partners Fund, LP v Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc.,*149 AD3d 667, 668 [1st Dept 2017], *lv dismissed in part and denied in part*30 NY3d 1009 [2017]).

Even if plaintiffs had standing, the claims fail to state a cause of action. The breach of contract claim is based on conclusory allegations of collusion *(Bodum USA, Inc. v Perez,*148 AD3d 644, 645 [1st Dept 2017]), and the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is duplica-tive of the breach of contract claim.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kapnick, Webber and Moulton, JJ.
#### Com. v. Normand

11/04/2015

471 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 452
No. 10-5611.

#### Norman McBride, Petitioner v. New York.

562 U.S. 931, 131 S. Ct. 327,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7189.

178 L. Ed. 2d 212,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York denied.

Same case below, 14 N.Y.3d 440, 902 N.Y.S.2d 830, 928 N.E.2d 1027.
No. 09-11298.

#### Frances K. Ewing, Petitioner v. United States Postal Service.

562 U.S. 872, 131 S. Ct. 174,

178 L. Ed. 2d 104,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6913.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
EX-32

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF JAMES H. ALEXANDER AND DANNIE SHAVER

                         SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report of Everlert, Inc.
("Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that to their knowledge:

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.



Dated: April 26, 2004                  By: /s/ James H. Alexander
                                       James H. Alexander, President



Dated: April 26, 2004                  By: /s/ Dannie Shaver
                                       Dannie Shaver,
                                       Secretary/Treasurer
2017-0501.

#### State v. Durham.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 103352 and 103382, 2017-Ohio-954.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                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 Loudeye Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jerold J. Goade, Jr., Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-OxlEy Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         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 as of the date of the financial statements contained therein.

/s/ Jerold J. Goade, Jr.
-----------------------------------------------
Jerold J. Goade, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer and Vice President
November 13, 2003

                                       43
162 A.3d 1045

#### IN THE MATTER OF PASQUALE MARAGO, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 036382009)

June 19, 2017

CORRECTED ORDER

This matter have been duly presented pursuant to *Rule*1:20-10(b), following a granting of a motion for discipline by consent in DRB 17-045 of PASQUALE MARAGO of RARITAN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 2009;

And the Office of Attorney Ethics and respondent having signed a stipulation of discipline by consent in which it was agreed that respondent violated *RPC*1.7 (concurrent conflict of interest), *RPC*
      *3391.8(a)(improper business transaction with a client), *RPC*1.15(a)(negligent misappropriation of client funds and failure to safeguard funds), *RPC*1.15(d) and *Rule*1:21-6(c)(1)(H)(record-keeping violations);

And the parties having agreed that respondent’s conduct violated *RPC*1.7, *RPC*1.8(a), *RPC*1.15(a), *RPC*1.15(d), and *Rule*1:21-6(c)(1)(H), and that said conduct warrants a reprimand or lesser discipline;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined that a reprimand is the appropriate discipline for respondent’s unethical conduct and having granted the motion for discipline by consent in District Docket No. XIV-2015-0325E;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having submitted the record of the proceedings to the Clerk of the Supreme Court for the entry of an order of discipline in accordance with *Rule*1:20—16(e);

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that PASQUALE MARAGO of RARITAN is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2634 

To prohibit a Federal firearms licensee from transferring a long gun to 

a person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe 

does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business 

entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which 

the licensee’s place of business is located. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2019 

Mr. CROW (for himself, Mr. NEGUSE, Mr. PERLMUTTER, Mr. HASTINGS, Ms. 

SHALALA, Mr. DEUTCH, and Ms. NORTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit a Federal firearms licensee from transferring 

a long gun to a person who the licensee knows or has 

reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if 

the person is a corporation or other business entity, 

does not maintain a place of business in) the State 

in which the licensee’s place of business is located. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Closing the Loophole 

5 on Interstate Firearm Sales Act’’. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2634 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION TO LONG GUNS OF BAN ON LICENSEE 

2 TRANSFER OF FIREARM TO OUT-OF-STATE 

3 PERSON. 

4 Section 922(b)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘(A)’’ and all that follows through 

6 ‘‘(B)’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS