alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2411-030]
 On July 29, 2022, Eagle Creek Schoolfield and the City of Danville filed a relicense application for the 4.5-megawatt Schoolfield Hydroelectric Project No. 2411. The project is located on the Dan River in Pittsylvania County near the City of Danville, Virginia. In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on September 19, 2024, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for environmental analysis (REA Notice). Based on the information in the record, including comments filed on the REA Notice, staff does not anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, staff intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the application to relicense the project.[1] The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and considered in the Commission's final licensing decision. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members, and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or 
                    *OPP@ferc.gov.* The application will be processed according to the following schedule. The EA will be issued for a 30-day comment period. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate. Milestone
Target dateCommission issues EA
December 2, 2025.
 Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Claire Rozdilski at (202) 502-8259 or 
                    *claire.rozdilski@ferc.gov.* Dated: December 3, 2024. Carlos D. Clay, Acting Deputy Secretary.


# Footnotes

1.
    
                         In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations, the unique identification number for documents relating to this environmental review is EAXX-019-20-000-1733139578. 40 CFR 1501.5(c)(4) (2024). Back to Citation


[FR Doc. 2024-28839 Filed 12-6-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 APW Ltd. (n/k/a BQX Ltd.) (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) for the period ended February 28,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Richard G. Sim, Chief Executive 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 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.



/s/ Richard G. Sim
---------------------------
Richard G. Sim
President and Chief Executive Officer

November 12, 2002
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the
annual report of SR Telecom Inc., a corporation existing under the Canada Business Corporations Act (the Company), on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, William E. Aziz, Interim President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company do hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), 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 consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and
the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.



|                                             
|---------------------------------------------
|                                             
|/s/ William E. Aziz                          
|William E. Aziz                              
|Interim President and Chief Executive Officer

April 20, 2006
Exhibit
10.14


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  COUNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB

  8511 FALLBROOK AVE

  WH-51F

  WEST HILLS, CA 91304

  (800) 669-2955



  



 


 


June 25, 2008


 


Home Loan Center, Inc.


163 Technology Drive


Irvine, CA 92618


Attn: Rian Furey, Senior
Vice President


 


Re:          Spinoff of InterActive Corporation


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


This
notice is issued in reference to that certain Transactions Terms Letter dated January 25,
2008 (the “Transactions Terms Letter”) and (b) that certain Master
Repurchase Agreement dated January 25, 2008 (the “Agreement”), both by and
between Countrywide Bank, FSB (“Buyer”) and Home Loan Center, Inc. (“Seller”)
(the Transactions Terms Letter and the Agreement, jointly, the “Repurchase
Agreement”). Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein
shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Repurchase Agreement.


 


Pursuant to the “Term” section of the Transactions
Terms Letter, the Term of the Repurchase Agreement expires on the earlier of (a) January 24,
2009 or (b) 60 days prior to an initial public offering, reorganization,
spinoff or similar transaction involving InterActive Corporation. Seller has
notified Buyer of a pending spinoff involving InterActive Corporation and has
requested that the Term of the Repurchase
Transaction not expire as a result thereof. As an accommodation to Seller, Buyer hereby agrees that the Term of the
Repurchase Agreement shall not expire upon the occurrence of the spinoff of InterActive Corporation and Buyer
agrees to continue to enter into Transactions with Seller under the
Repurchase Agreement pursuant to its terms and conditions; provided, however, that if Buyer determines at any
time prior to January 24, 2009 that such spinoff materially and
adversely affects Seller, Buyer reserves the right to deem the Repurchase Agreement
expired prior to such date.


 


Sincerely,


 


 




	
  /s/ Richie Walia

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Richie Walia

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Senior Vice President
Exhibit 32.2

           CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

     I, Martin Wotton., Principal Financial Officer of visionGATEWAY, Inc.
(the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, based on my knowledge:

     (1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant, to which
this certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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
Registrant.


Dated: March 17, 2005

/s/Martin G. Wotton
Martin G. Wotton
President
(Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to visionGATEWAY and will
be retained by visionGATEWAY and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Donald MACDONALD, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Gloria MACDONALD, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 3D18-1015

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AUGUST 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
MOUNTAIN HIGH ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, INC., Appellant, v. AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3325

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

I, Carole R. Wright, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of UTEK Corporation; 

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, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin 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 officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors: 

(a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting. 

Dated this 6th day of May, 2008.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed February 2, 2022.

________________

No. 3D21-1944

Lower Tribunal No. 21-3035 SP

________________

Tower Imaging, LLC, etc.,

Appellant,

vs.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael G. 

Barket, Judge.

Daly & Barber, P.A., Christina M. Kalin, Matthew C. Barber and John 

C. Daly (Plantation), for appellant.

Akerman, LLP, Marcy Levine Aldrich and Nancy A. Copperthwaite, for 

appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and EMAS, and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

Tower Imaging, LLC, d/b/a Blackfin Medical (as assignee of Rebecca 

Jeznach) (“Blackfin”), appeals the trial court’s order granting State Farm 

Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s (“State Farm”) motion to transfer 

the case based on forum non-conveniens. Blackfin claims that the motion 

to transfer was not based on any supporting evidence presented by State 

Farm and further claims that the trial court erred by requiring Blackfin to pay 

the transfer fee. State Farm responds and confesses error in both respects. 

Upon review of the record, we agree. See Miracle Chiropractic & Rehab Ctr. 

v. 21st Century Centennial Ins. Co., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 

May 12, 2021).

Reversed and remanded.
1

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-1794

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of South Dakota.

*

Leroy Louis Scott, Jr., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: November 6, 2001

 Filed: November 14, 2001

___________

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After a jury trial, Leroy Louis Scott, Jr., was convicted of escaping from federal

custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (1994). The District Court1

 sentenced him

to sixteen months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release. On appeal, his

counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), and Scott has filed a pro se supplemental brief.
-2-

We have carefully considered each of the issues raised on appeal—regarding

Scott’s speedy-trial rights under the Sixth Amendment and the Speedy Trial Act, his

Fifth Amendment right to be free from excessive pre-indictment delay, the alleged

variance between the indictment and the jury instructions, the District Court’s receipt

of hearsay evidence, and his duplicity challenge to the indictment—and we find each

argument to be without merit. Additionally, having reviewed the record

independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have not found

any nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2020018EN.01001901.xml

| 20.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 18/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 18/19

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-subsidy measures

(2020/C 18/04)

1.   As provided for in Article 18(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the countervailing measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of subsidisation and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 18(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Biodiesel | The United States of America | Anti-subsidy duty | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1519 of 14 September 2015 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009
  (OJ L 239, 15.9.2015, p. 99). | 16.9.2020 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

Biodiesel

The United States of America

Anti-subsidy duty

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1519 of 14 September 2015 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009

(OJ L 239, 15.9.2015, p. 99).

16.9.2020

---

(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 55.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.

---
Janice P. WAUGH and Tahn C. Waugh, Appellants, v. TOWER HILL PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, Karen V. Mcintyre and James M. Mcintyre, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-910

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 5, 2018

John W. Zielinski and Andrew C. Hill, of NeJame Law, P.A., Orlando, for Appellants.

Candy L. Messersmith and David B. Shelton, of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, Orlando, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
SM Energy /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 7, 2013

No. 04-12-00772-CV

W.H. SUTTON, Arctic Royalty Limited Partnership, Julie S. Mueller, Janet Lee Smith as 

Trustee of the Janet Lee Smith Family Trust, Anita Louise Davies as Trustee of the Anita Louise 

Davies Family Trust and Frederick Jackson Bell Jr., et al.,

Appellants

v.

SM ENERGY COMPANY,

Appellee

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CVQ001903 D3

Honorable Elma T. Salinas Ender, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant's motion to exceed page limits for reply brief is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. 

Appellant's reply brief does not exceed the page limits per the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 7th day of August, 2013.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# C_2020053EN.01001001.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/10

---

Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU

Request made by a Contracting Entity

(2020/C 53/10)

On 19 September 2019 the Commission received a request in accordance with Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). The first working day following receipt of the request is 20 September 2019.

This request, made by is Slovenske železnice – Tovorni promet d.o.o., concerns rail freight transport in Slovenia. Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU provides that ‘contracts intended to enable an activity mentioned in Articles 8 to 14 to be carried out, shall not be subject to this Directive if the Member State or the contracting entities having introduced the request pursuant to Article 35 can demonstrate that, in the Member State in which it is performed, the activity is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted; nor shall design contests that are organised for the pursuit of such an activity in that geographic area be subject to this Directive’. The assessment of direct exposure to competition that can be carried out in the context of Directive 2014/25/EU is without prejudice to the full-fledged application of competition law.

The Commission is allowed a period of 90 working days to take a decision on this request, commencing on the working day referred to above. The period therefore expires on 5 February 2020.

According to Article 35(5) of Directive 2014/25/EU, further requests concerning the same sector or activity in Slovenia before the expiry of the period opened in respect of this request shall not be considered as new procedures and shall be treated in the context of this request.

---

(1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement procedures by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243).

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6888

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES LAMONT JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District

Judge. (CR-98-137)

Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Lamont Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James Lamont Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Johnson, No. CR-98-137 (M.D.N.C. Mar.

30, 2001). We grant Johnson’s motion to file supplemental material. 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.

DISMISSED