alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 120 (Thursday, June 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33242-33243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15600]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL01-88-000]


Louisiana Public Service Commission and the Council of the City 
of New Orleans, Louisiana Complainant, v. Entergy Corporation, Entergy 
Services, Inc., et al.; Notice of Complaint

June 15, 2001.
    Take notice that on June 14, 2001, the Louisiana Public Service 
Commission and the Council of the City of New Orleans filed with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), a Complaint against 
Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., 
Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, 
Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc. and System Energy Resources, Inc. 
seeking amendments to the Entergy System Agreement or Unit Power Sales 
Agreement of System Energy Resources, Inc. to remedy a disruption of 
rough production cost equalization among the Operating Companies of the 
Entergy System. The Complaint requests that the Commission act by July 
31, 2001 to set the case for hearing and that, pursuant to a settlement 
agreement in Louisiana Public Service Comm'n, et al v. Entergy Corp., 
et al, Docket Nos. EL00-66-000, ER00-2854-00, and EL95-33-002, direct 
that the case be handled under a schedule for exceptionally complex 
cases (Track 3).
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

[[Page 33243]]

20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such 
motions or protests must be filed on or before July 5, 2001. 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 proceeding. 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 also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers to the 
complaint shall also be due on or before July 5, 2001. 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. 01-15600 Filed 6-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2012049EN.01000501.xml

| 18.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — Iride SpA, formerly Azienda Mediterranea Gas e Acqua SpA v European Commission, A2A SpA, formerly ASM Brescia SpA

(Case C-329/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - State aid - Aid granted to public utilities - Tax exemptions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Standing - Legal interest)

2012/C 49/08

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Iride SpA, formerly Azienda Mediterranea Gas e Acqua SpA (represented by: L. Radicati di Bronzolo, M. Merola and T. Ubaldi, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucca, E. Righini and D. Grespan, Agents), A2A SpA, formerly ASM Brescia SpA

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 June 2009 in Case T-300/02 AMGA v Commission, by which the General Court rejected as inadmissible an application for the annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21)

AMGA

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders Iride SpA to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Iride SpA to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the request for replacement of grounds. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the request for replacement of grounds.

---

(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.

1

---
SEC Exhibit






                                                                  Exhibit 10.49












June 2015
 Leslie Parrette




Dear Leslie,


Your contributions to Novelis are very important.  In recognition of this, the Company has put in place an enhancement to the existing long-term incentive plan (LTIP). This “Bridge” plan was developed to supplement the LTIP while the new Novelis portion of the Plan matures. This program will provide you with a cash incentive in addition to your other compensation such as your base salary, annual bonus opportunity and long-term incentive opportunity.


The Bridge plan is in place for FY2016 and will be reviewed and considered for FY2017.





You will receive three payments in the total amount of $75,000



First Payment in December 2015        $22,500
Second Payment in December 2016        $22,500
Third Payment in December 2017        $30,000
 


















Because this opportunity is designed to enhance our LTIP as a retention incentive, in the event that you voluntarily terminate your employment prior to December 31, 2018, or are terminated for cause, you will be required to repay any payments made under the Bridge plan in the previous 12 months, less applicable taxes, and you will not be entitled to any other payments thereafter.  If you are terminated involuntarily without cause, any unpaid cash installments will be immediately cancelled, but you will not be required to repay any cash payments you have received.


Your acceptance of any payments under this award shall constitute your acceptance of the terms and  conditions set forth above.


I am very pleased that we are able to offer you this opportunity and I look forward to your continuing to be a key member of the team as we focus on building an even more successful Novelis.


Sincerely,


/s/ Steve Fisher


Steve Fisher
  Interim President & CEO and Senior Vice President and CFO
Lakeita GRIMES, petitioner, v. Samuel TODD.

No. 16-6686.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16059]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-217-001]


Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership; Notice of 
Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

June 21, 2001.
    Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Great Lakes Gas Transmission 
Limited Partnership (Great Lakes) tendered for filing as part of its 
FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following with an 
effective date of June 1, 1996:

Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 70

    Great Lakes states that this tariff sheet is being filed to correct 
a pagination error that occurred when reserving a range of sheets for 
future use in an earlier tariff filing. As a result of that error, the 
electronic Great Lakes tariff includes the reserved sheets as currently 
effective, with outdated text. The instant filing will resolve any 
inconsistencies in Great Lakes' electronic tariff, and it will conform 
the affected sheets to the Commission's pagination requirements.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such 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. 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.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-16059 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

 Office of Public Affairs 

 Three Lafayette Centre 

 1155 21st Street, NW 

 Washington, DC 20581 

 www.cftc.gov

Q & A – Amendments to Adapt Certain 

CFTC Regulations to the Dodd-Frank Act 

What is the goal of the proposed rulemaking? 

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) amended the Commodity 

Exchange Act in numerous ways to give the Commission the authority to regulate swaps. This proposed 

rulemaking conforms the Commission’s regulations to the Dodd-Frank Act. For example, the Commission has 

proposed amending certain fundamental definitions and recordkeeping regulations in Part 1 so that they apply to 

both futures and swaps. 

To Which Commission Registrants and Registered Entities does the proposed rulemaking apply? 

Proposed revisions to Part 1 require futures commission merchants and introducing brokers to follow 

recordkeeping rules for swap transactions that are equivalent to those rules they must presently follow for futures 

transactions. Proposed revisions to Regulation 1.31 create general recordkeeping obligations for all registrants, 

including swap dealers and major swap participants. 

Other proposed revisions to Part 1 require swap execution facilities to comply with the same rules currently 

applicable to designated contract markets. For example, under proposed revised Regulation 1.67, once a swap 

execution facility determines that a member has committed a rule violation resulting in financial harm to a customer, 

the swap execution facility must provide prompt written notice to that member. The member must then provide 

prompt written notice of that violation to the affected customer. 

How does the proposed rulemaking intersect with other Dodd-Frank Act proposed rulemakings? 

None of the proposed amended regulations depend on other Dodd-Frank Act proposed rulemakings. The 

proposed rulemaking seeks to conform the Commission’s regulations to the Dodd-Frank Act. 

How is this proposed rulemaking different from other Dodd-Frank Act proposed rulemakings? 

Whereas some of the other Dodd-Frank Act rulemakings proposed new regulations applicable only to pending 

registrants and registered entities such as swap dealers, major swap participants, swap execution facilities, and swap 

data repositories, this rulemaking amends existing regulations that apply to existing and/or pending registrants. 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ♦ Office of Public Affairs ♦ 202-418-5080
# C_2009205EN.01002101.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes (France) lodged on 10 June 2009 — Scott SA, Kimberly Clark SNC, now Kimberly Clark SAS v City of Orléans

(Case C-210/09)

2009/C 205/36

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Scott SA, Kimberly Clark SNC, now Kimberly Clark SAS

Applicants:

Defendant: City of Orléans

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is a possible annulment by the French administrative court of the assessments issued for the recovery of aid declared on 12 July 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities to be incompatible with the common market, (1) on the ground that those assessments infringe legislative provisions relating to the physical presentation of those assessments, given the ability of the competent administrative authority to remedy the vitiating defect in those decisions, such as to hinder the immediate and effective implementation of the Decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 12 July 2000, contrary to Article 14(3) of the Council Regulation of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty? (2)

1

2

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 12 July 2000 on the state aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA Kimberly-Clark (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

2

---
Frances Morris FINLEY, petitioner, v. Richard Parker EVANS.

No. 16-6382.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41725

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ELEAZAR ACOSTA-MOSQUEDA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CR-7-3

Before GRAVES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eleazar Acosta-Mosqueda pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea 

agreement, to conspiracy to transport aliens within the United States, and he 

was sentenced to 60 months in prison and to three years of supervised release. 

The district court’s judgment was entered on October 7, 2015. AcostaMosqueda filed a pro se notice of appeal no earlier than December 8, 2015, and 

sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Because the notice

of appeal was not filed within 14 days of the entry of judgment or within the 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 15, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41725 Document: 00513549065 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2016
No. 15-41725

2

30-day period for filing an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, the 

district court determined that the notice of appeal was untimely and denied 

the motion to proceed IFP on that basis. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A), (b)(4). 

This court can dismiss an appeal during consideration of an interlocutory 

motion if the appeal “is frivolous and entirely without merit.” 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

Acosta-Mosqueda did not file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the entry 

of the criminal judgment, and his notice of appeal was filed beyond the time 

for extending the appeal period. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A), (b)(4). Thus, 

the district court did not err in enforcing the time limitations set forth in Rule 

4(b), and denying the IFP motion, and this court may not reverse its decision 

to do so. See United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 473 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Because the instant appeal is without arguable merit, Acosta-Mosqueda’s 

motions to proceed IFP and for the appointment of counsel are denied, and the 

appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED. 

 Case: 15-41725 Document: 00513549065 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2016
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of The Bank of Kentucky Financial Corporation
(BKFC) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Martin J. Gerrety, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary of BKFC, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of BKFC.



/s/ Martin J. GerretyMartin J. GerretyTreasurer and Assistant SecretaryMarch 14, 2008
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1600 

Supporting the critical role of the physician assistant profession and 

supporting the goals and ideals of National Physician Assistant Week. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2010 

Ms. MCCOLLUM (for herself and Mr. TERRY) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the critical role of the physician assistant profession and supporting the goals and ideals of National 

Physician Assistant Week. 

Whereas more than 75,000 physician assistants in the United 

States provide high-quality, cost-effective medical care in 

virtually all health care settings and in every medical and 

surgical specialty; 

Whereas the physician assistant profession’s patient-centered, 

team-based approach reflects the changing realities of 

health care delivery and fits well into the patient-centered 

medical home model of care, as well as other integrated 

models of care management; 

Whereas approximately 47 percent of physician assistants 

currently practice in primary care and emergency medicine, regularly providing access to needed medical care to 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1600 IH 

underserved populations such as frontier communities, 

rural towns, the urban poor, and at-risk groups (such as 

the elderly); 

Whereas physician assistants practice in teams with physicians and extend the reach of medicine and the promise 

of improved health to the most remote and in-need communities of our Nation; 

Whereas nearly 300,000,000 patient visits were made to physician assistants in 2009; 

Whereas physician assistants may provide autonomous medical care, have their own patient panels, and are granted 

prescribing authority in all 50 States; 

Whereas the physician assistant profession was created 40 

years ago in response to health care workforce shortages 

and is a key part of the solution to today’s health care 

workforce shortage; 

Whereas the American Academy of Physician Assistants recognizes October 6–12, 2010 as National Physician Assistant Week; and 

Whereas the physician assistant profession is uniquely positioned to be able to adapt and respond to the evolving 

needs of the health care system by virtue of— 

(1) comprehensive educational programs that prepare physician assistants for a career in general medicine; and 

(2) a team-based approach to providing patient-centered medical care: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives sup2 ports— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1600 IH 

1 (1) the critical role of the physician assistant 

2 profession for the significant impact the profession 

3 has made and will continue to make in health care; 

4 and 

5 (2) the goals and ideals of National Physician 

6 Assistant Week. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Curtis Lee WATSON, petitioner, v. Tamyra JARVIS, Warden.

No. 16-6483.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
Manuel SHEARD, IV, petitioner, v. Paul KLEE, Warden.

No. 17-7125.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Ronald L. McPHERON.

No. D-2940.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Ronald L. McPheron, of Chicago, Illinois, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2009 – Commission v Portugal**

**(Case C‐30/09)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 96/82/EC – Article 11 – External emergency plans

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 16)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 11 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13), as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 97) – Failure to draw up external emergency plans for certain establishments. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to ensure the implementation of the measures provided for under Article 11 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |