alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 54 (Monday, March 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 12112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6248]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Economics and Statistics Administration


Bureau of Economic Analysis Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 
as amended by Pub. L. 94-409, Pub. L. 96-523, Pub. L. 97-375 and Pub. 
L. 105-153), we are announcing a meeting of the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis Advisory Committee. The meeting will address ways in which the 
national economic accounts can be presented more effectively for 
current economic analysis and recent statistical developments in 
national accounting.

DATES: Friday, May 1, 2009, the meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and 
adjourn at 3:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis at 1441 L St. NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Newman, Media and Outreach 
Lead, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone number: (202) 606-9265.
    Public Participation: This meeting is open to the public. Because 
of security procedures, anyone planning to attend the meeting must 
contact Jeffrey Newman of BEA at (202) 606-9265 in advance. The meeting 
is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for 
foreign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be 
directed to Jeffrey Newman at (202) 606-9265.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee was established September 2, 
1999. The Committee advises the Director of BEA on matters related to 
the development and improvement of BEA's national, regional, industry, 
and international economic accounts, especially in areas of new and 
rapidly growing economic activities arising from innovative and 
advancing technologies, and provides recommendations from the 
perspectives of the economics profession, business, and government. 
This will be the Committee's eighteenth meeting.

    Dated: March 13, 2009.
Rosemary D. Marcuss,
Deputy Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
 [FR Doc. E9-6248 Filed 3-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-06-P
Racquel ADAMS, Appellant, v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.

WD 81534

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: November 20, 2018

Racquel Adams, Appellant Pro-se.

Saskia Jacobse, for Respondent City of Kansas City, Missouri.

Mandolin S. Roberson, for Respondent Division of Employment Security.

Before Division One: Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Presiding Judge, Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge and Thomas N. Chapman, Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

Racquel Adams appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying her application for unemployment compensation benefits based on a finding that she had been discharged for misconduct connected to her work. Finding no error, we affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         216,409
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  799,113
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,019,741
<PP&E>                                       5,007,768
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,198,719
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,837,590  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          618,530
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       237,945
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,532,895
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,837,590
<SALES>                                      4,426,221
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,426,221
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,647,485
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,120,833
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               119,097
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             591,324
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,045,716)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,045,716)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,045,716)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
Andrew G. THOMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106273

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: February 19, 2019

Stephen P. Ranz, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO. 63101, for appellant.

Dora A. Fichter, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Andrew G. Thompson ("Movant") appeals from the judgment of the motion court, denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to adequately object to speculative testimony as to Movant's state of mind, and opinion and interpretation of his body language and gestures; (2) unreasonably adducing evidence of a prior uncharged incident of *305sexual misconduct by Movant against Victim; and (3) failing to call a witness to testify in Movant's defense. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2018).
Exhibit 10.1


 


FORM OF
SUPPLEMENTAL INCENTIVE STOCK NOTICE


 


Mr. Mark Schweitzer


[Address]


 


This Supplemental Option Notice (the
“Notice”) dated as of [Date], 2010 is being sent to you by Virgin Media Inc.
(including any successor company, the “Company”) in order to amend the terms of
the original Option Notice previously sent to you (the “Original Notice”) dated
as of [Date] (the “Grant Date”).


 


The Original Notice granted you the Option
(as such term is defined in the Original Notice) in recognition of your
services as an employee of the Company. 
The Company and you have agreed to amend the terms of the Original
Notice as follows:


 


Paragraph 3 of the Original Notice is hereby amended
in its entirety to read as follows:


 


“3.  Exercise Period. The
[Number] Options that are due to vest on October 1, 2010 shall remain in
force after the termination of your employment on June 30, 2010. Your
right to exercise that portion of the Option and any Options that have vested
as at June 30, 2010 shall terminate on the earlier of the following dates: (a) one
year after the termination of your employment other than for Cause; (b) one
year after your termination resulting from your retirement, disability or
death; (c) the date on which your employment is terminated for Cause; or (d) [Date].  Save as described in this paragraph, all
other Options shall stop vesting immediately upon the termination of your
employment and shall be forfeited and cancelled.”


 


Except as expressly amended or supplemented hereby,
the Original Notice shall remain in full force and effect. This Notice is
supplemental to the Original Notice and the Original Notice and this Notice
shall be read and construed together.


 


 


	
   

  	
  VIRGIN MEDIA INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Bryan H Hall

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Secretary and General Counsel
Exhibit 23



W.T. Uniack & Co. CPAs P.C.

Certified Public Accountants





Independent Registered Public Accounting Firms Consent



We consent to the inclusion in the filing of Goldland Holdings, Inc. on Form 10K/A and our report dated April 2, 2012, with respect to our audits of the financial statements of Goldland Holdings Co. as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 and for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, which report appears with those financial statements referred to above. We also consent to the reference to our Firm under the heading Experts in such Prospectus.





/s/W.T. Uniack & Co. CPAs P.C.





Woodstock, Georgia

May 2, 2012
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Smith, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 33]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Stackhouse, J.), rendered May 21, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of auto stripping in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2 to 4 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness charge as to the owner of the vehicle that had been broken into by defendant. Under the particular circumstances, the court properly concluded that the vehicle owner should not be deemed to be under the People’s “control” solely by virtue of his status as the victim of the crime *(compare, People v Robertson,*205 AD2d 243, 246, *lv denied*85 NY2d 913). The uncalled witness, a visitor from Texas, was the victim of a property crime committed when defendant was observed in his vehicle. After signing a supporting deposition, the uncalled witness returned to Texas. There is no basis for a finding of control for purposes of a missing witness instruction. The court properly concluded that the witness was unavailable and that reasonable efforts were made by the People to contact him before and during trial and that these efforts were unsuccessful. The ability of the People to subpoena this Texas resident was also questionable. It is not clear that the materiality, necessity, and absence of undue hardship requirements of the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State in Criminal Cases (CPL 640.10; *People v McCartney,*38 NY2d 618) could be met under the circumstances of the case (see, *People v Walker,*105 AD2d 720, *lv denied*64 NY2d 787). The uncalled witness’s testimony would have been cumulative in that the incident was also witnessed by his companion who testified to same. Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.
***For the SIP Call proposal, we could add this biomass CFI text on p. 51,

under "Definition and Calculation of Amount of GHGs."  

We note that in this rulemaking, we are not addressing the issue of

accounting for emissions of GHGs from bioenergy and other

biogenic sources (which are generated during the combustion or

decomposition of biologically based material such as forest or

agriculture products).  When we finalized the Tailoring Rule, we

noted that EPA planned to seek comment on how to address emissions of

biogenic CO2 under the PSD and title V programs through future action, such as a separate

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (75 FR at 31591).  Accordingly, we recently

issued a Call for Information (CFI) to solicit public comment and data

on technical issues that might be used to consider biomass fuels and the emissions resulting

from their combustion differently with regard to applicability under PSD and with regard to

the BACT review process under PSD.  See “Call for

Information:  Information on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with

Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources,” 75 FR 41173 (July 15, 2010).

Additional information on this CFI is available at   

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/biogenic_emissions.html.  In the CFI we stated:   

"In response to this Call for Information,

interested parties are invited to assist EPA in the following way:

(1) Surveying and assessing the science by submitting research

studies or other relevant information, and  

(2) evaluating different accounting approaches and options by providing policy

analyses,proposed or published methodologies, or other relevant information.

Interested parties are also invited to submit data or other relevant

information about the current and projected scope of GHG emissions

from bioenergy and other biogenic sources."  75 FR 41174     

Without prejudging the outcome of the CFI process, EPA anticipates that the comments we

receive in response to the CFI,  with regard to applicability under PSD and with regard to

the BACT review process under PSD, will inform any subsequent actions, as appropriate, to

address applicability of emissions of GHGs from bioenergy and other biogenic sources under

the PSD program.

NOTE:  EPA proposes to use the same language in both the SIP call and FIP proposals
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30637 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ELIJAH MARTIN, III, also known as Teddy Martin Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CR-20075-12

- - - - - - - - - - June 16, 1998 Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court appointed counsel for Elijah Martin, III, has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in this appeal of a sentence imposed for violation of conditions of supervised release. Our independent review of the brief and record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS
DISMISSED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1007
CHISSE TOURE, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A70-888-811) Submitted: June 9, 2004 Decided: June 25, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Mark C. Walters, Assistant Director, Victor M. Lawrence, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Chisse Toure, a native of the Ivory Coast and a citizen of Mali, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision to deny asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review. Toure disputes the IJ’s conclusion that she was firmly resettled in the Ivory Coast and lacked a well-founded fear of persecution in Mali. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Toure fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. See Mussie v. INS , 172 F.3d 329, 331-32 (4th Cir. 1999); Huaman-Cornelio v. Board of Immigration Appeals , 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that she seeks. Additionally, we reject Toure’s contention that the Board’s summary affirmance of the IJ’s decision violated her rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. SeeBlanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft , 362 F.3d 272, 280-83 (4th Cir. 2004).- 3 - We therefore deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

KATHY ANN COLL

v.

FR. CYPRIAN DURU, AN INDIVIDUAL;

ST. TERESA OF AVILA ROMAN CATHOLIC PARISH; THE MOST
REVEREND DAVID ALLEN ZUBIK, DD., MS ED.; THE ROMAN CATHOLIC

DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH

PETITION OF: THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH; THE MOST
REVEREND DAVID ALLEN ZUBIK; AND

ST. TERESA OF AVILA ROMAN

CATHOLIC PARISH :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 81 WM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of November , 2019, the Application for Extraordinary

Relief is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32





OCTAGON 88 RESOURCES, INC.





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 Annual Report of Octagon 88 Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jacqueline Danforth, as Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: September 30, 2010
By:
/s/Jacqueline DanforthName:
Jacqueline DanforthTitle:
Principal Financial Officer & Principal Accounting Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing
**Exhibit 15.3**

 

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-81825 and 333-149634 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-190307 on Form F-3 of Vodafone Group Plc of our report dated February 27, 2014 relating to the 2013 consolidated financial statements of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Vodafone Group Plc for the year ended March 31, 2015.

 

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

New York, New York  June 8, 2015

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1455

SUSAN JEANETTE SMITH; DEBBIE MARCUS; DAWN

SMITH, and others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

ROY BECK, d/b/a Twin Peaks,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA96-258-3-19)

Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 10, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Susan Jeanette Smith, Debbie Marcus, Dawn Smith, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal from the district court's order denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Smith v. Beck, No. CA-96-258-3-19 (D.S.C. Apr. 22, 1996). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5544 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5544

     To provide for the security of critical energy infrastructure.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2006

   Mr. Gene Green of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide for the security of critical energy infrastructure.

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

SECTION 1. EVACUATION PLAN REVIEW.

    Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Energy shall transmit to the Congress a report of the 
Secretary's review of the fuel supply plan components of State 
evacuation plans and the National Capitol region. Such report shall 
determine the sufficiency of such plans, and shall include 
recommendations for improvements thereto. Annually after the 
transmittal of a report under this section, the Secretary shall 
transmit a report to the Congress assessing plans found insufficient 
under previous reports.

SEC. 2. DISASTER ASSISTANCE.

    (a) Authority.--During any federally declared emergency or 
disaster, the Secretary of Energy may provide direct assistance to 
private sector entities that operate critical energy infrastructure, 
including refineries.
    (b) Assistance.--Assistance under this section may include 
emergency preparation and recovery assistance, including power 
generation equipment, other protective or emergency recovery equipment, 
assistance to restore access to water, power, or other raw materials, 
and transportation and housing for critical employees. The Secretary 
may request assistance from other Federal agencies in carrying out this 
section.

SEC. 3. CRITICAL ENERGY ASSURANCE ACCOUNT.

    There is established in the Treasury an account known as the 
Critical Energy Assurance Account. The Secretary of Energy shall 
deposit into this account amounts appropriated to the Secretary for the 
purpose of carrying out this Act and payments paid to the Secretary by 
any non-Federal source for the purpose of carrying out this Act. The 
Secretary may receive and accept payments from any non-Federal source, 
and amounts deposited into the account, whether appropriated or 
received from a non-Federal source, shall be available to the 
Secretary, without further appropriation, for carrying out this Act.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    The Secretary of Energy may issue regulations necessary or 
appropriate to carry out this Act.
                                 <all>
```