alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 52453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20383]



[[Page 52453]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blythe Mesa Solar II, LLC....................  EG21-164-000
Corazon Energy, LLC..........................  EG21-165-000
Trent River Solar Mile Lessee, LLC...........  EG21-166-000
Golden Hills Wind Farm LLC...................  EG21-167-000
CED Crane Solar, LLC.........................  EG21-168-000
BRP Sweeny BESS LLC..........................  EG21-169-000
Lincoln Land Wind, LLC.......................  EG21-170-000
ES 1A Group 2 Opco, LLC......................  EG21-171-000
Edwards Sanborn Storage I, LLC...............  EG21-172-000
ES 1A Group 3 Opco, LLC......................  EG21-173-000
Edwards Solar Line I, LLC....................  EG21-174-000
Prairie Wolf Solar, LLC......................  EG21-175-000
Daylight I, LLC..............................  EG21-176-000
Sanborn Solar Line I, LLC....................  EG21-177-000
Edwards Sanborn Storage II, LLC..............  EG21-178-000
Clover Creek Solar, LLC......................  EG21-179-000
Antelope Expansion 1B, LLC...................  EG21-180-000
Ensign Wind Energy, LLC......................  EG21-181-000
Independence Wind Energy LLC.................  EG21-182-000
Glass Sands Wind Energy, LLC.................  EG21-183-000
Board River Solar, LLC.......................  EG21-184-000
CPRE 1 Lessee, LLC...........................  EG21-185-000
Speedway Solar NC, LLC.......................  EG21-186-000
Stony Knoll Solar, LLC.......................  EG21-187-000
Lancaster Solar LLC..........................  EG21-188-000
SR Georgia Portfolio II Lessee, LLC..........  EG21-189-000
SR Lumpkin, LLC..............................  EG21-190-000
SR Snipesville II, LLC.......................  EG21-191-000
Jayhawk Wind, LLC............................  EG21-192-000
Minonk Stewardship Wind LLC..................  EG21-193-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of August 2021, the status of the 
above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became 
effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) 
(2020).

    Dated: September 15, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-20383 Filed 9-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### In the Matter of Susan Baba, Appellant, v Martin Evans et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 8, 2007;

decided January 16, 2007

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Edward Brown, Appellant, v James Conway, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Submitted April 2, 2007;

decided June 5, 2007

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no appeal lies from the order of an individual Justice of the Appellate Division *(see*NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b]; CPLR 5601). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                 DOCUMENT SCIENCES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
            COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE (1)
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             YEAR ENDED
                                                                            DECEMBER 31,
                                                                      -------------------------
                                                                         1996           1995
                                                                      ----------     ----------
<S>                                                                   <C>            <C>
Pro forma net income (loss).........................................  $    1,361     $    1,052
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding................   9,115,533        119,210
Weighted average number of preferred shares outstanding on an as if
  converted basis...................................................          --      7,140,000
Number of common stock equivalents as a result of stock options
  outstanding using the treasury stock method.......................     230,110        885,357
Number of common shares issued and stock options granted in
  accordance with Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 83 (2)..............     145,104        147,165
Shares used in per share computation................................   9,490,747      8,291,732
Pro forma net income (loss) per share...............................  $     0.14     $     0.13
</TABLE>
 
---------------
(1) This exhibit presents the primary and fully diluted computations of pro
    forma income and loss per share. There is no material difference in the per
    share amounts when applying either method.
 
(2) Common shares issued by the Company during the twelve months immediately
    preceding the initial public offering date plus the number of common
    equivalent shares which were issued during the same period pursuant to the
    grant of stock options (using the treasury stock method and offering price)
    have been included in the calculation of common equivalent shares pursuant
    to Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 83.
datetime,flow volume2015-05-20,4352.82899
# CI2021076EN.01001501.xml

| 5.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 76/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 76/15

---

COVID – 19 outbreak

(Regulation (EU) 2021/267 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2021 laying down specific and temporary measures in view of the persistence of the COVID-19 crisis concerning the renewal or extension of certain certificates, licences and authorisations, the postponement of certain periodic checks and periodic training in certain areas of transport legislation and the extension of certain periods referred to in Regulation (EU) 2020/698 (1))

(2021/C 76 I/08)

Sweden

Date of the Information to the Commission: 25.2.2021

Sweden has decided, in conformity with the relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) 2021/267 of the European Parliament and of the Council that it shall not apply the following provisions:

| — | Article 4(1) concerning the regular inspections of tachographs in road transport under Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4(1) concerning the regular inspections of tachographs in road transport under Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 (2);

| — | Article 4(2) concerning the renewal of driver cards under Regulation (EU) No 165/2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4(2) concerning the renewal of driver cards under Regulation (EU) No 165/2014;

| — | Article 4(3) concerning the replacement of driver cards under Regulation (EU) No 165/2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4(3) concerning the replacement of driver cards under Regulation (EU) No 165/2014;

| — | Article 5(1) concerning the time limits for the periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers under Directive 2014/45/EU (3); |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 5(1) concerning the time limits for the periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers under Directive 2014/45/EU (3);

| — | Article 5(2) concerning the validity of roadworthiness certificates under Directive 2014/45/EU. |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 5(2) concerning the validity of roadworthiness certificates under Directive 2014/45/EU.

---

(1)  OJ L 60, 22.2.2021, p. 1.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on tachographs in road transport, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (OJ L 60, 28.2.2014, p. 1).

(3)  Directive 2014/45/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and repealing Directive 2009/40/EC (OJ L 127, 29.4.2014, p. 51).

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             634
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,001
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,906
<PP&E>                                             135<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,315
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,400
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            37
<OTHER-SE>                                        (122)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,315
<SALES>                                          7,931
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,931
<CGS>                                            5,395
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,395
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,381
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 152
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    155
<INCOME-TAX>                                        44
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                111
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       111
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
<FN>
<F1>Furniture and equipment, net
</FN>


</TABLE>
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# Charles F. Lettow

Born: Iowa Falls, Iowa1941

Judge Lettow was appointed a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims on July 14, 2003, andentered on duty on July 22, 2003. He previously spent more than 30 years as a litigator with Cleary,Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, first as an associate from 1973-1976, and then as a partner from 1976-2003. During that time, he argued three cases in the U.S. Supreme Court and more than 40 cases inthe federal courts of appeals, and handled numerous cases in federal trial courts.

Prior to joining Cleary, Gottlieb, Judge Lettow served as Counsel, Council on Environmental Qualityin the Executive Office of the President, from 1970 to 1973. He was a law clerk to Chief Justice WarrenE. Burger, Supreme Court of the United States, during 1969-1970, and was a law clerk to Judge Ben C.Duniway, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, during 1968-1969. Judge Lettow received anLL.B. degree from Stanford University in 1968, where he was Note Editor of the Stanford Law Reviewand a member of Order of the Coif. He also received a B.S.Ch.E. from Iowa State University in 1962,and a M.A. in history from Brown University in 2001. From 1963 to 1965, Judge Lettow served in theU.S. Army with the Third Infantry Division.

While at Cleary, Gottlieb, Judge Lettow was active with educational institutions and bar organizations.He served as chairman of the board of trustees of The Potomac School from 1985-1988, and as amember of the board from 1983-1990. He also was chairman of the Environmental ControlsCommittee of the Section of Business Law, American Bar Association, from 1983-1987. He has been amember of the American Law Institute since 1994.

In January 1992, Judge Lettow received an award from the National Association of Attorneys General"for sustained assistance to the States in their preparation for appearances before the Supreme Court ofthe United States." In 1997 and 1998, he received awards from the National State and Local LegalCenter for amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court

Judge Lettow maintains an interest in academic research on historical topics, particularly in the Tudor-Stuart period in England and the corresponding colonial period in the United States. He also sustains aninterest in agriculture and farming. He is married and resides in the Washington, D.C. metropolitanareas. He and his wife have four children.

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

August 7, 2001

List of Attachments

No. Title Author / Presenter

1 Attendance Sheets

2 FY 2001 Aerial Imagery Collection Mike Liszewski

3 Strategic Plan Mary Orton

4 Glossary Mary Orton

5 Revised language to go under Arole of the AMWG@ Clayton Palmer

6 Flip Charts Members

7 Revised Foreword Wayne Cook

8 Rewrite of Goal 10 Clayton Palmer

9 AMP Integrated Budget Randy Peterson

10 Comments on FY2003 AMP Budget Members

11 Work Plan for Reclamation=s PA Compliance, FY01-03 Nancy Coulam

12 Summary of Comments from the TWG KAS Ad Hoc Committee Bob Winfree
* 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. 01-50845 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DANIEL AGUSTO VELASQUEZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-01-CR-108-ALL

-------------------- February 20, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Daniel Agusto Velasquez-Lopez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Velasquez-Lopez complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Velasquez-Lopez thus contends that his sentence should not exceed the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).No. 01-50845 -2-
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Velasquez-Lopez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### HAIGHT et al., Appellants, v. PINE et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 13, 1896.)

Action by John 6. Haight, as executor, etc., of Underhill L. Purdy, deceased, and others, against Sullivan M. Pine, administrator, etc., of James Pine, deceased, and others.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal denied, without costs. See 39 N. Y. Supp. 511.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                          1,217,288
<SECURITIES>                                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   1,451,732
<ALLOWANCES>                                                       46,769
<INVENTORY>                                                     3,275,559
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                6,301,655
<PP&E>                                                          2,570,027
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    706,777
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                  8,550,989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           3,421,822
<BONDS>                                                         1,174,508
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                                             0
<COMMON>                                                            4,599
<OTHER-SE>                                                      3,890,361
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                    8,550,989
<SALES>                                                         3,637,239
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                3,637,239
<CGS>                                                           1,539,347
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   3,433,428
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                1,894,081
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 61,088
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   142,723
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       72,844
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                69,879
<DISCONTINUED>                                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                         0
<CHANGES>                                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                                       69,879
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                        0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        0.01
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-5958

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JESSE LEWIS HAGANS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge.

(CR-94-249-K)

Submitted: December 19, 1995 Decided: February 16, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jesse Lewis Hagans, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Mason Thomas, Jr.,

Stephen S. Zimmerman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jesse Hagans, proceeding pro se, appeals his convictions for

conspiracy and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (1988). Hagans' only

briefed issue in this appeal is ineffective assistance of counsel.

Because we find no conclusive appearance of ineffective assistance

from the trial record, we conclude that Hagans must initiate a habeas corpus proceeding in the district court if he wishes to pursue

this claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988); see also United States v.

Fisher, 477 F.2d 300, 302 (4th Cir. 1973) (providing exception that

where ineffective representation conclusively appears in trial

record, claim may be raised on direct appeal).

Having disposed of Hagans' ineffective assistance claim, we

reviewed the entire record, including both pre-trial motions and

sentencing, for reversible error. Although not technically before

this Court, we have paid special attention to the errors alleged by

Hagans' counsel before his withdrawal. Our review has revealed no

reversible error. Further, we hold that the evidence supports

Hagans' conviction and that the district court correctly calculated

his sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction and sentence. 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