alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15500]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-448-000]


Trunkline LNG Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

June 14, 2001.
    Take notice that on June 8, 2001, Trunkline LNG Company (TLNG) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 
1-A, Sixth Revised Sheet No. 115, to be effective July 8, 2001.
    TLNG states that the purpose of this filing is to add a general 
statement in section 21.7 of the General Terms and Conditions to 
address the ``shipper must have title'' rule and state that TLNG will 
only provide service for others utilizing capacity acquired on another 
pipeline (off-system capacity) pursuant to its existing rates and 
tariff. TLNG requests that the Commission grant a generic waiver of the 
``shipper must hold title'' policy for any future service that TLNG may 
provide utilizing off-system capacity.
    TLNG states that copies of this filing are being served on all 
affected customers and interested state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the 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 in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via 
the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15500 Filed 6-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
"- ., . ~. .r ·, ' 

COMMENT Futures Industry Association 

2001 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

Suite 600 

Washington, DC 20006-1823 

Received CFTC tJ7- /3 

September 21, 2007 

Mr. David A. Stawick 

Secretary 

~rr 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20581 

® 

202.466.5460 

202.296.3184 fax 

www.f(,ture.~induscry.org 

--·,··; 

... 

•' i .. 

--:;, 

... 

-:-. 

::::::: 

.... -. ~ 

-··. 

Re: CME Petition for Exemption from FCM Registration on Behalf of CFETS 

Dear Mr. Stawick, 

The Futures Industry Association is writing to request a two-week extension of 

time to file comments on the CME petition for exemption from FCM registration •. The 

comment period will end on September 24, 2007. · 

FIA's regular membership is comprised of approximately 34 of the largest 

futures commission merchants in the US. FIA estimates that its members effect more than 

eighty percent of all customer transactions executed on US contract markets. Many of the 

FIA regular members are clearing members of the CME. 

The issue under consideration by the Commission is whether the application 

should be approved under section 4 (c) of the CEA, that is whether the Commission 

should use its exemptive powers to exempt a foreign broker that intends to become a 

clearing member of the CME from FCM registration requirements. According to the 

release, CFETS intends to become a "super-clearing member" of the CME, authorized to 

clear foreign currency and interest rate futures transactions on behalf of CFETS members 

and their customers in China. 

FIA believes this request raises issues that should be thoroughly addressed by the 

CFTC because it is an important case of first impression. Therefore, we request the 

additional time to submit a comment letter. 

Sincerely, 

~ M·~ftk.· 

Barbara Wierzynski 

General Counsel 

Cc: Robert Wasserman, CFTC 

Ananda Radhakrishnan, CFTC 

Thomas J. Smith, CFTC 

John Lawton, CFTC
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 7224

JAMES C. MCNEILL

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

RENE SMITH

- HARRIS; BIANCA PIRTLE; CHARLOTTE WILLIAMS; ERIK HOOKS; ELDRIDGE WALKER; JOHNNY HAWKINS; THOMAS MCCURDY; KENNETH LITTLE; BILLY O. COOPER; SGT. DAVID GILLIS; SGT. J. CURTIS JONES; CHICQUITA A. LUCAS; SGT. WILSON

,

Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:19

- ct

- 03010

- D )

Submitted : December 17, 2019 Decided: December 20, 2019

Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

J ames C. McNeill , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

James C. McNeill appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2012) complaint. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordin gly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McNeill v. Smith

Harris , No. 5:19

- ct

- 03010

- D (E.D.N.C. Aug. 19, 2019) . We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* The district court dismissed the complaint in part for failure to state a claim and in part without prejudice as to McNeill’s ability to assert in a habeas corpus petition his claims of due process violations in connection with disciplinary proceedings.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: J. M. LEAK 

DOCKET NUMBER: 46 

DATE: APRIL 19, 1948 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington 25, D. C. 

April 19, 1948 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CE-A DOCKET NO. 46 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing was signed by the Secretary of Agriculture 

on April 12, 1948, charging 

J. M. Leak of Arab, Alabama 

with violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. 

Complaints are issued under the Commodity Exchange Act for the purpose of 

notifying respondents that the Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe 

that respondents have violated the Act and to advise them of the time and place 

of hearings to be held to determine whether the charges are correct. The 

issuance of a complaint does not, of course, constitute proof of violation of 

the law. Such violation is established only when the Judicial Officer of the 

Department has made a determination that the evidence substantiates allegations 

in the complaint. 

Complaints are filed in the office of the hearing clerk of the Solicitor of 

the Department of Agriculture and are thereupon a matter of public record. 

Copies are filed in the Washington office and the field offices of the Commodity 

Exchange Authority. 

In cases where the Judicial Officer determines that a violation has occurred 

the resulting order will be served upon all contract markets and circularized 

among all registered futures commission merchants for their information and 

guidance. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer it is the policy of the 

Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate upon the charges 

contained in complaints or discuss the evidence upon which they are based. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
#### Mitchell S. Brookstone et al., Appellants, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 109167.)

[883 NYS2d 347]

*1024Malone Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Schaewe, J), entered January 11, 2008, upon a decision of the court following a bifurcated trial in favor of defendant on the issue of liability.

Claimant Mitchell S. Brookstone (hereinafter claimant) was injured while playing a “pick-up” game of basketball on an outdoor asphalt court at Gilbert Lake State Park in Otsego County when, after jumping for a ball headed out of bounds, he landed on an uneven edge of the court. Thereafter, claimant and his wife, derivatively, commenced this action alleging, among other things, that defendant was negligent in the construction and maintenance of the basketball court. Following a bifurcated trial, the Court of Claims dismissed the claim, finding that claimant assumed the risks inherent in playing basketball on an outdoor court. Claimants appeal.

A voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity consents to the inherent risks arising out of such activity, including “those risks associated with the construction of the playing surface and any open and obvious condition on it” *(Welch v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*272 AD2d 469, 469 [2000]; *see Lincoln v Canastota Cent. School Dist.,*53 AD3d 851, 852 [2008]). Notably, the Court of Appeals has determined that an irregular playing surface is an inherent risk of outdoor basketball *(see Sykes v County of Erie,*94 NY2d 912, 913 [2000]; *Lincoln v Canastota Cent. School Dist.,*53 AD3d at 852). Here, contrary to claimants’ contention, the slightly uneven surface at the edge of the basketball court was an open and obvious risk and did not constitute an unreasonably dangerous condition *(cf Clark v State of New York,*245 AD2d 413 [1997]). Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly dismissed the claim.

Cardona, P.J., Lahtinen and Stein, JJ., concur; Mercure, J., not taking part. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
John W. DOBBS, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-5823.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District denied.
JOHN S. DOWLING & COMPANY


Board of Directors
St. Landry Financial Corporation
459 East Landry Street
Opelousas, Louisiana  70570

Members of the Board:

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement on
Form S-8 of St. Landry  Financial  Corporation  (the "Company") of our report on
the financial  statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
for the year ended  September  30,  1996 filed  pursuant to the  Securities  and
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


                                                   /S/ JOHN S. DOWLING & COMPANY

Opelousas, Louisiana
December 19, 1996
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**Certificate      of **
**Principal      Accounting Officer **
**as      required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

|   | 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                Cadence. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                             |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |                                   |
|--------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
| Dated:               February 7, 2006  | By:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              | /s/ LORRAINE              M. KING |
|                                             |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|                                             | Name:                  Lorraine M. KingTitle:                    Chief Financial Officer                             (Principal Financial and Accounting                Officer) |

|   |   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |

----
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER****PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of GenVec, Inc. (“the Company”), hereby certifiesthat, to his knowledge, on the date hereof: (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2006filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“the Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and  (2) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, andmay not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than asspecifically required by law.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.        Date: January 11, 2008 /s/ Douglas J. Swirsky   Douglas J. Swirsky                        Chief Financial Officer,
#### Leonard W. PERCIVAL, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2012-7032.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 7, 2012.

ORDER

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
245 F.2d 61

#### Charles TUENGEL, Appellant, v. The CITY OF SITKA, ALASKA, an incorporated Alaska municipality, Board of National Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, a corporation, and Sitka Community Hospital, Appellees.

No. 15200.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 10, 1957.

Rehearing Denied May 20, 1957.

*172See also 118 F.Supp. 399, 14 Alaska 546.

Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, Juneau, Alaska, Charles Tuengel, Sitka, Alaska, for appellant.

Faulkner, Banfield & Boochever, Harold L. Faulkner, Juneau, Alaska, for appellee.

Before FEE, CHAMBERS and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This action for damages for alleged personal injuries was tried before a jury, who found for defendants and against plaintiff Tuengel. Plaintiff then appealed.

The record shows these facts. On November 17, 1951, Tuengel, who is a barber, called at the Sitka Community Hospital at the request of one Cresa. The latter desired Tuengel to cut his hair. A nurse on duty told Tuengel that Cresa’s room was the third on the left, which direction, repeated by Tuengel, was correct.

*173Instead of knocking at the door indicated, Tuengel opened another door marked “Basement” and fell down a well lighted stairway.

The case was fairly and impartially tried. The verdict was in accordance with the evidence. There is no indication that the jury ignored material evidence. The instructions were full and correct and none was in error. Under the statutes of Alaska, record of conviction of Tuengel for criminal contempt for jury tampering was admissible for what effect it might be given in affecting the credibility of plaintiff. Section 58-4 — 61, A.C.L.A.1949; In re Ashland, 4 Alaska 486 (Cushman, J., 1912). No other alleged error appears to be of substance.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Community Financial Corporation (the "Company") that the quarterly report of theCompany on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in suchreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

| Dated: November 13, 2006 | /s/ P. Douglas RichardP. Douglas RichardPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ R. Jerry GilesR. Jerry GilesSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|--------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timothy Williams, Appellant.

[874 NYS2d 856] —

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Anthony F. Aloi, J.), rendered November 22, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminad possession of a weapon in the third degree and menacing in the second degree.

*1376It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Fahey, Garni and Gorski, JJ.
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 11

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                     For The Year Ended December 31, 1996
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                     <C> 
Primary
  Average shares outstanding...........................   313,174
  Net effect of dilutive stock options based on the
  treasury stock method using average market price.....     6,010
                                                         --------
      Total............................................   319,184
                                                         --------
  
      Net income.......................................  $198,784
                                                         --------
      Per share amount.................................  $   0.62
 
 Fully Diluted
   Average shares outstanding..........................   313,174
   Net effect of dilutive stock options based on the
     treasury stock method using the period-end market
     price, if higher than average market price........     6,361
                                                         --------
      Total............................................   319,535
                                                         --------
      Net income.......................................  $198,784
                                                         --------
      Per share amount.................................  $   0.62
 
</TABLE>
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, dba GlaxoSmithKline, et al., petitioners, v. KING DRUG COMPANY OF FLORENCE, INC., et al.

No. 15-1055.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
#### Kevin L. RICHARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Debra DEXTER, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-55736.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 5, 2010.

Kevin L. Richard, Blythe, CA, pro se.

Louis W. Karlin, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

*199Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Kevin L. Richard appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Richard contends the trial court violated his right to present a defense by precluding him from introducing evidence of third party culpability. The state court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Richard fails to show the proffered evidence was admissible under *People v. Hall,*41 Cal.3d 826, 226 Cal.Rptr. 112, 718 P.2d 99 (1986). Therefore, its exclusion did not violate his constitutional right to present a defense under *Crane v. Kentucky,*476 U.S. 683, 690, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986). *See Holmes v. South Carolina,*547 U.S. 319, 326-27, 126 S.Ct. 1727, 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006) (“the Constitution permits judges to exclude evidence that is repetitive ..., only marginally relevant or poses an undue risk of harassment, prejudice, [or] confusion of the issues”) (alterations in original) (internal quotations omitted); *see also Spivey v. Rocha,*194 F.3d 971, 978 (9th Cir.1999) (concluding that state trial court did not infringe defendant’s constitutional rights by excluding speculative third-party culpability evidence).

We construe Richard’s additional argument as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. *See*9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); *see also Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**EXHIBIT 12.1****Oncothyreon Inc. and Consolidated Subsidiaries****Computation of Deficiency in the Coverage of Fixed Charges by Earnings Before Fixed Charges**       **For the three months ended**   **March 31, 2008** **Earnings before fixed charges:**    Loss from continuing operations before incometaxes, minority interest and income/(loss) fromequity investees $(5,114)Add fixed charges  10 Add amortization of capitalized interest  — Add distributed income of equity investees  — Subtract capitalized interest  —     Loss before fixed charges $(5,104)    **Fixed charges:**    Interest expense $2 Amortization of debt expense  — Estimate of interest expense within rentalexpense  8 Preference security dividend requirements ofconsolidated subsidiaries  —     Total fixed charges $10     Deficiency of earnings available to cover fixedcharges $(5,114)