alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 138 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19232]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-3690-000]


New England Power Pool; Notice of Filing

July 14, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 10, 1998, the New England Power Pool 
Executive Committee filed for acceptance a signature page to the New 
England Power Pool (NEPOOL) Agreement dated September 1, 1971, as 
amended, signed by USGen New England, Inc., (USGenNE). The NEPOOL 
Agreement has been designated NEPOOL FPC No. 2.
    The Executive Committee states that the Commission's acceptance of 
USGenNE's signature page would permit NEPOOL to expand its membership 
to include USGenNE. NEPOOL further states that the filed signature page 
does not change the NEPOOL Agreement in any manner, other than to make 
USGenNE's participation in NEPOOL. NEPOOL requests an effective date 
for the commencement of USGenNE's participation in NEPOOL as of the 
date of USGenNE's acquisition of the generating assets currently owned 
by New England Power Company, which is anticipated to occur August 1, 
1998 at the earliest.
    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, N.E., Washington, D.C. 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 and protests should be filed on or before July 24, 1998. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine 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.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-19232 Filed 7-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN: SE0 1295 A 4

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
Tolerance ID Descriptor L* a* b* c h dL* da* db* dEcmc*

COYOTE 

476 STANDARD 38.40 4.15 18.30

1 3720C THIN ORANGE 

LIMIT 38.44 4.98 19.81 0.04 0.83 1.51 1.18

2 3720E GREEN LIMIT 38.28 3.29 17.66 -0.12 -0.86 -0.64 1.00

GREEN 

474 STANDARD 28.44 -5.65 7.35

KHAKI 

475 STANDARD 44.06 0.45 13.43

3 N/A ORANGE LIMIT 38.73 4.79 17.54 0.33 0.64 -0.76 1.05

4 3720D FULL YELLOW 

LIMIT 37.91 4.08 20.21 -0.49 -0.07 1.91 1.45

5 3720F THIN YELLOW 

LIMIT 40.34 4.45 20.77 1.94 0.30 2.47 2.07

BLACK 

477 STANDARD 17.56 -1.26 -1.02

6 3720A THIN LIMIT 39.13 4.04 18.81 0.73 -0.11 0.51 1.02

Equipment Type HUNTER ULTRA SCAN PRO Setting Mode: Specular Included - 

Reflectance

UV Filter – OUT UV Lamp OFF

COMMENTS: NUMBERS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY 

Shade Number MARPAT WOODLAND Piece/Roll Number 3720

DLA/MARINE CORP SHADE TOLERANCE PROJECT July 4, 2019

Fabric Nomenclature CLOTH, WATERPROOF AND MOISTURE 

VAPOR PERMEABLE

MIL-PRF-32142

MC-PD 19005
No. 11-5099.

#### Tommy Walker, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 934, 132 S. Ct. 382,

181 L. Ed. 2d 241,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6506.

October 3, 2011.

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.
No. 11-378.

#### David Johnson, Petitioner v. J. D. Whitehead, Warden, et al.

565 U.S. 1111, 132 S. Ct. 1005,

181 L. Ed. 2d 734,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 396.

January 9, 2012.

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

Same case below, 647 F.3d 120.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

HARBURG MEDICAL SALES CO.,

Petitioner

v.

PMA MANAGEMENT CORP. (BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, FEE REVIEW HEARING OFFICE),

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 537 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 31st day of March, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.

Justice Brobson did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
No. 11-374.

#### Marvin Smith, et ux., Petitioners v. Atlantic Southern Bank, et al. (three judgments).

565 U.S. 1060, 132 S. Ct. 769,

181 L. Ed. 2d 486,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8626,

November 28, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 11-6819.

#### Jesus Ramos, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1042, 132 S. Ct. 593,

181 L. Ed. 2d 435,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8256.

November 14, 2011.

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

Same case below, 433 Fed. Appx. 893.
Filed 10/9/13 Terrill v. Patzer CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

MICHELLE ELIZABETH TERRILL,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JULIE PATZER,

Defendant and Appellant. G048256

(Super. Ct . No. 30-2013-00623295)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from an order of the Superi or Court of Orange County, Michael Brenner, Judge. (Retired judge of the Oran ge Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Julie Patzer, in pro. per., a nd for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *2 Defendant Julie Patzer appeals from a civil harassment restraining order issued upon the petition of Mich elle Elizabeth Terrill. Patz er’s brief is devoid of any record references, legal analysis, or citations to authority. The mo st we can derive from

the brief is that she attack s the credibility of Terrill and Jennifer Wilson, a witness who testified in support of Terrill’s petition. But it is for the trial court to determine credibility. Our task is mere ly to determine whether th e judgment is supported by

substantial evidence. The transcript of the hearing disclose s that, for over a year, Patzer resided in a “back house” on Terrill’s property. Thei r difficulties started when Patzer quit her job; apparently because she caused some di sturbance at work. The police called Terrill telling her that Patzer was acting erratically . After Terrill arrived at home, she had a

conversation with Patzer whic h resulted in a confrontation where Patzer grabbed Terrill’s arm and called her “unpleasant, four-letter names.” Thereafter there were further incidents, including Patzer creating a bi zarre display in Te rrill’s back yard.

We are satisfied there was substantia l evidence supporting the issuance of the restraining order. “Under the substantia l evidence standard of review, ‘we must consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference, and resolving conflicts in support of the [findings]. [Citations.] [¶] It is not our task to weigh co nflicts and disputes in the evidence; that is the province of the trier of fact. Our authority begins and ends with a determination as to whether, on the entire record, there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, in support of the judgment.’” ( ASP Properties Group, L.P. v. Fard, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.Ap p.4th 1257, 1266.)3 DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. Appellant shall bear her own costs on appeal.

RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

MOORE, J.

FYBEL, J.
# QSLMQSLDRivets
(1) Adjusting Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $9.59 CWT 0.965 $9.2544

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $1.8008 LB 3.5 $6.3028

Class I Price $15.5572

(2) Base Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $10.76 CWT 0.965 $10.3834

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $1.6719 LB 3.5 $5.8517

Class I Price $16.2351

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT ($0.6779)

(4) Price change per gallon ($0.0583)

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon ($0.0291)

Price change per quart ($0.0146)

Price change per pint ($0.0073)

Price change per 12-oz pg. ($0.0053)

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) ($0.0044)

Price change per half pint ($0.0036)

(6) Price adjustment per gallon ($0.06)

Price adjustment per half gallon ($0.03)

Price adjustment per quart ($0.01)

Price adjustment per pint ($0.01)

Price change per 12-oz pg. ($0.01)

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) ($0.00)

Price adjustment per half pint ($0.00)

**No price adjustment is required if the price change per-gallon, in either direction,

is not equal to or greater than +/-$0.0100 (See paragraph (f)(1) of the clause). 

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positives or increases. 

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032)

Based on USDA Announcement of Advanced Prices and Pricing Factors

Effective Date: Mar. 1, 2015
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 20

- 00236

- CR

IN RE MICHAEL ANTHONY MOORE

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original proceeding Michael Moore seeks mandamus relief against the

district clerk. Moore states that he paid for a copy of the record in his case, but the clerk

refuses to provide the record. A court of appeals has no jurisdiction to issue a wri t of

mandamus against a district clerk except to protect or enforce its jurisdiction. See T EX

.

G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 22.221 (West 2004); In re Bernard , 993 S.W.2d 453, 454 (Tex. App.

—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding). Moore has not shown that a wr it ofIn re Moore Page 2

mandamus directed to the district clerk is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. 1 We

dismiss Mack’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus against the clerk for want of jurisdiction.

JOHN E. NEILL Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed September 9, 2020 [OT06]

1 The rather complicated process to compel the district clerk to perform a ministerial act is discussed in In re Bernard , 993 S.W.2d 453, 454 (Tex. App

. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding)(O’Connor Concurring).
No. D-2587.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of Kathleen Kauth Trum.

562 U.S. 1041, 131 S. Ct. 631,

178 L. Ed. 2d 459,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9015.

November 15, 2010.

Kathleen Kauth Trum, of Garden City, New York, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring her to show cause why she should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
No. 11-6532.

#### In re Angel Ruiz Rivera, Petitioner.

565 U.S. 1033, 132 S. Ct. 590,

181 L. Ed. 2d 443,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8129,

November 14, 2011.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 11-6902.

#### Curtis Owens, Petitioner v. Kelly Van Cleave Harrington.

565 U.S. 1044, 132 S. Ct. 598,

181 L. Ed. 2d 438,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8108.

November 14, 2011.

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

Same case below, 414 Fed. Appx. 980.
No. 11-6683.

#### Michael Anthony Diaz, Petitioner v. Texas.

565 U.S. 1082, 132 S. Ct. 820,

181 L. Ed. 2d 531,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8739.

December 5, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, denied.
No. 11-6046.

#### In re Douglas Robertson, Petitioner.

565 U.S. 975, 132 S. Ct. 506,

181 L. Ed. 2d 390,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7691.

October 31, 2011.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
(1) Adjusting Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $6.55 CWT 0.965 $6.3208

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.9719 LB 3.5 $10.4017

Class I Price $16.7224

(2) Base Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $7.32 CWT 0.965 $7.0638

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.7212 LB 3.5 $9.5242

Class I Price $16.5880

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT $0.1344

(4) Price change per gallon $0.0116

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon $0.0058

Price change per quart $0.0029

Price change per pint $0.0014

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.0010

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.0009

Price change per half pint $0.0007

(6) Price adjustment per gallon $0.01

Price adjustment per half gallon $0.01

Price adjustment per quart $0.00

Price adjustment per pint $0.00

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.00

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.00

Price adjustment per half pint $0.00

**No price adjustment is required if the price change per-gallon, in either direction,

is not equal to or greater than +/-$0.0100 (See paragraph (f)(1) of the clause). 

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positives or increases. 

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032)

Based on USDA Announcement of Advanced Prices and Pricing Factors

Effective Date: Aug. 6, 2017
ID Descriptor L* a* b* c h dL* da* db* dEcmc*

Standard 3909 STANDARD 15.29 0.39 -1.05

Tolerance

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Shade Number BLACK 557 Piece/Roll Number 3909

DLA/ARMY SHADE TOLERANCE PROJECT June 11, 2018

Fabric Nomenclature POLYESTER, KNIT, TSHIRT, APFU GL/PD 13-07A

COMMENTS: NUMBERS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY 

Equipment Type HUNTER ULTRA SCAN PRO Setting Mode: Specular Included - 

Reflectance

UV Filter – OUT UV Lamp OFF
(1) Adjusting Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $10.82 CWT 0.965 $10.4413

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.0057 LB 3.5 $7.0200

Class I Price $17.4613

(2) Base Price

Base Skim Milk Price for Class I $10.46 CWT 0.965 $10.0939

Advanced Butterfat Pricing Factor $2.1309 LB 3.5 $7.4582

Class I Price $17.5521

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT ($0.0908)

(4) Price change per gallon ($0.0078)

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon ($0.0039)

Price change per quart ($0.0020)

Price change per pint ($0.0010)

Price change per 12-oz pg. ($0.0007)

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) ($0.0006)

Price change per half pint ($0.0005)

(6) Price adjustment per gallon ($0.01)

Price adjustment per half gallon ($0.00)

Price adjustment per quart ($0.00)

Price adjustment per pint ($0.00)

Price change per 12-oz pg. ($0.00)

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) ($0.00)

Price adjustment per half pint ($0.00)

**No price adjustment is required if the price change per-gallon, in either direction,

is not equal to or greater than +/-$0.0100 (See paragraph (f)(1) of the clause). 

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positives or increases. 

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032)

Based on USDA Announcement of Advanced Prices and Pricing Factors

Effective Date: Mar 1, 2020
No. 10-1469.

#### Vincent L. Abell, Petitioner v. Maria-Theresa Wilson.

565 U.S. 1074, 132 S. Ct. 800,

181 L. Ed. 2d 511,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8357.

November 28, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 823, 132 S. Ct. 111, 181 L. Ed. 2d 36, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 5544.
No. 11-7122.

#### Troy Waymer, Petitioner v. McKither Bodison, Warden.

565 U.S. 1097, 132 S. Ct. 856,

181 L. Ed. 2d 558,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8851.

December 12, 2011.

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

Same case below, 445 Fed. Appx. 703.
f10k2011ex10xxiva_pathfinder.htm


Exhibit 10.24(a)







Compensation Arrangement with John Benson







Effective January 1, 2012, the annual salary to which Mr. John Benson is entitled under his employment agreement with Pathfinder Cell Therapy, Inc. (the “Company”) has been set at $106,923.96, reflecting a 20% reduction in the salary to which he otherwise would have been entitled.  The reduction reflects the allocation of a portion of Mr. Benson’s time to non Company-related business.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 146 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40741-40742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20397]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; Consortium for Integrated Intelligent 
Manufacturing, Planning and Execution

    Notice is hereby given that, on February 3, 1998, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Consortium for Integrated 
Intelligent Manufacturing, Planning and Execution (CIIMPLEX) has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, The Haley 
Enterprise, Inc., Sewickley, PA; IndX Software Inc., Laguana Nigual, 
CA; Scandura, Narbeth, PA; and Vitria Technology, Inc., Palo Alto, CA 
have been added as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Consortium for Integrated 
Intelligent Manufacturing, Planning and Execution (CIIMPLEX) intends to 
file additional written notification disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On April 24, 1996, Consortium for Integrated Intelligent 
Manufacturing, Planning and Execution (CIIMPLEX) filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 
6(b) of the Act on May 15, 1996 (61 FR 24514).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 13, 
1997. A notice was published in the Federal

[[Page 40742]]

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 13, 1997 (62 FR 
32370).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 98-20397 Filed 7-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
No. 11-70.

#### Judy Prescott Barnett, Petitioner v. Robert E. Carberry, et al.

565 U.S. 881, 132 S. Ct. 248,

181 L. Ed. 2d 143,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5590.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 420 Fed. Appx. 67.
ID Descriptor L* a* b* c h dL* da* db* dEcmc*

Standard 3866 STANDARD 36.40 -3.63 12.23

Tolerance

1 3866A BLUE LIMIT 36.91 -3.92 11.68 0.51 -0.29 -0.55 0.65

2 3866B EXTREME 

YELLOW LIMIT 36.49 -3.21 13.56 0.09 0.42 1.33 1.20

3 3866C RED LIMIT 35.19 -3.24 12.29 -1.21 0.39 0.06 0.79

4

5

6

7

8

9

COMMENTS: NUMBERS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY 

Equipment Type HUNTER ULTRA SCAN PRO Setting Mode: Specular Included - 

Reflectance

UV Filter – OUT UV Lamp OFF

Shade Number OD GREEN 522 Piece/Roll Number 3866

DLA/MARINE CORP SHADE TOLERANCE PROJECT April 5, 2019

Fabric Nomenclature T-SHIRT, OPTIONAL, USMC, SYNTHETIC CR-PD-02-04
**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 Entech Environmental Technologies,
        Inc.,
        a Florida corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
        March
        31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
        hereof (the "Report"), I, Burr Northrop, as Chief Financial Officer 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:
 
 (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 result of operations of the
        Company.








Date: May
              21,
              2007
            By:
            /s/ Burr
              NorthropBurr NorthropPresident
              and
              Chief
              FinancialOfficer
(1) Adjusting Price $17.48 CWT

(2) Base Price $17.08 CWT

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT $0.40

(4) Price change per gallon $0.0344

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon $0.0172

Price change per quart $0.0086

Price change per pint $0.0043

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.0032

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.0027

Price change per half pint $0.0021

(6) Price adjustment per gallon $0.03

Price adjustment per half gallon $0.02

Price adjustment per quart $0.01

Price adjustment per pint $0.00

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.00

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.00

Price adjustment per half pint $0.00

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positive or increases.

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032 Alt. I)

Based on California Dept. of Food and Agriculture Announcement of Minimum Prices

 Effective Date: June 7, 2015
You would do anything to

your child from cancer.

Simply getting the HPV vaccine at ages 11 or 12 can help 

protect them against certain cancers later in life.

Ask your child’s doctor or nurse about the HPV vaccine.

www.cdc.gov/HPV

JANUARY 2020