alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 93 (Friday, May 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 27332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11531]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 10482-014, 10481-064, and 9690-106]


AER NY-Gen, LLC; Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC; Eagle Creek Water 
Resources, LLC; Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC; Notice of Application 
for Transfer of Licenses, and Soliciting Comments and Motions To 
Intervene

May 7, 2010.
    On April 30, 2010, AER NY-Gen, LLC (transferor) and Eagle Creek 
Hydro Power, LLC, Eagle Creek Water Resources, LLC, and Eagle Creek 
Land Resources, LLC (transferees) filed an application for transfer of 
licenses for the Swinging Bridge Project No. 10482, the Mongaup Falls 
Project No. 10481, and the Rio Project No. 9690, located on the Mongaup 
River in Sullivan and Orange Counties, New York.
    Applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the licenses for 
the three above projects from the transferor to the transferee.
    Applicant Contact: For transferor: Mr. Joseph Klimaszewski, AER NY-
Gen, LLC, 613 Plank Road, Forestburgh, New York, 12777; phone (845) 
856-3920. For the transferee: Mr. Paul Ho, Eagle Creek Hydro Power, 
LLC, Eagle Creek Water Resources, LLC, and Eagle Creek Land Resources, 
LLC, 400 Frank W. Burr Boulevard, Suite 37, Teaneck, NJ 07666; phone 
(201) 287-4474.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, (202) 502-6062.
    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 30 days from 
the issuance date of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene may 
be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii)(2008) and the instructions on the Commission's 
website under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed 
electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an 
original and eight copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, 
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. For more information on how to submit these types 
of filings please go to the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp.
    More information about this project can be viewed or printed on the 
eLibrary link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-9690-106, P-10481-064, 
P-10482-014) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11531 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                          <C>                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                 23845
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      869387
<PP&E>                                                761467
<DEPRECIATION>                                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        869397
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 780368
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                4655
<OTHER-SE>                                            336381
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          869387
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       76465
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         102418
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     20834
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                          (25953)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (25953)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (.006)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.006)








</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7105

SHERWOOD FARROW,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EDDIE PEARSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-96-1002-R)

Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 30, 1997

Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sherwood Farrow, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Farrow v. Pearson, No. CA-96-1002-R (W.D. Va. July 7,

1997). 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
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT BY


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the amendment no. 1 to the quarterly report of Apex Resources
Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, John
Rask, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





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





(2)  the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.












Date:
      April 1, 2008
                By:
      /s/ John
      RaskJohn
      Rask, Principal Financial Officer
* The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-3398NE

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District v. * of Nebraska. * Ronald G. Frazier, Sr., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: February 9, 1999

Filed: February 18, 1999

_____________ Before FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and ROSENBAUM, * District Judge.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Ronald G. Frazier, Sr. appeals his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(3) and 1153 (1994). Frazier contends his federal conviction violates the Double Jeopardy Clause because the Winnebago Tribal Court previously convicted Frazier for assault and the same conduct forms the basis for both convictions. We decline to consider Frazier’s contention, however, because Frazier failed to raise his double jeopardy claim in the district court. See UnitedStates v. Goodwin , 72 F.3d 88, 91 (8th Cir. 1995) (“Double-2-

jeopardy claims may not be raised for the first time on appeal”); see also United States v. Santana , 150 F.3d 860, 863-64 (8th Cir. 1998) (same). We thus affirm Frazier’s conviction. We also grant Frazier’s motion to supplement the record. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of First Franklin Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Daniel T. Voelpel, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

        (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.




/s/ Daniel T. Voelpel
------------------------------------
Daniel T. Voelpel
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to First Franklin Corporation and will be retained by First Franklin
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
United States Securities and Exchange Commission Edgar Filing


Exhibit 10.2




Description of the Material Terms of PECO II, Inc.’s

Non-Equity Incentive Compensation Plan for Fiscal 2009




Messrs. Heindel and Borders and Ms. Boyer (the “Named Executive Officers”) are eligible to receive cash bonuses under the Company’s Non-Equity Incentive Compensation Plan for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2009 (the “2009 IC Plan”). Fifty percent of the potential cash bonus for each Named Executive Officer is based upon the achievement of certain EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) targets and 50% is based on the achievement of certain customer service goals. If the EBITDA targets are not met, no cash bonuses will be awarded under the 2009 IC Plan. 




If the threshold EBITDA target is met but no customer service goals are achieved, the Named Executive Officers will receive the threshold incentive compensation in the form of cash bonuses in accordance with the table below. If the threshold EBITDA targets are met and exceeded and the customer service goals are achieved, the Named Executive Officers will receive incentive compensation in the form of cash bonuses in accordance with the table below (with bonus amounts to be interpolated between the performance levels): 




Incentive Compensation Payout Opportunities for Fiscal 2009




						
	 
	Threshold

	 
	Target

	 
	Maximum


	John G. Heindel

Chairman of the Board, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

	$75,000

	 
	$150,000

	 
	$300,000


	Guy Kevin Borders

Vice President of Marketing & Product Development and Secretary

	$25,000

	 
	$50,000

	 
	$100,000


	Jacquie Boyer

Vice President of Sales & Sales Operations

	$42,500

	 
	$85,000

	 
	$170,000
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137058 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 137058 

 COA: 285601 

Kent CC: 07-006484-FC 

SHANE MICHAEL TORIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 17, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1117 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 25, 2008 

 Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8522

RANDY L. VALENTINE, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (4:08-cv-00979-HMH)

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 27, 2009

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy L. Valentine, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Randy L. Valentine seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Valentine has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-150635, 333-150634, 333-142780, 333-134903, 333-126989, 333-117451, 333-63106, 333-77009 and 333-168463 pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 2008 Equity Incentive Plan, Stock Option Plan and Directors’ Stock Option Plan of StarTek, Inc. of our reports dated March 4, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of StarTek, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of StarTek, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.

 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

 

 

Denver, Colorado

March 4, 2011

 

----
Document Headings

                    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 State

          - [Public Notice 6998]

Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Qasim al-Rimi and also known as Qasim Yahya Mahda `abd al-Rimi, also known as Qasim al-Raymi, also known as Qassim al-Raymi, also known as Qasim al-Rami, also known as Abu Harayrah, also known as Abu Hurayrah al-San'ai, also known as Abu `Ammar committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.

Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that “prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,” I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     **Federal Register.**

Dated: April 6, 2010.

Hillary Rodham Clinton,

Secretary of State, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2010–11196 Filed 5–10–10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–10–P
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1655 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1655

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to revise the criteria 
             for designation as a critical access hospital.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 28, 1999

   Ms. Snowe introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to revise the criteria 
             for designation as a critical access hospital.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Hospital Flexibility Act of 
1999''.

SEC. 2. REVISION OF CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION AS A CRITICAL ACCESS 
              HOSPITAL.

    (a) Criteria for Designation.--Section 1820(c)(2)(B)(iii) (42 
U.S.C. 1395i-4(c)(2)(B)(iii)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``to exceed 96 hours'' and inserting ``to 
        exceed, on average, 96 hours per patient'';
            (2) by striking ``, except'' and all that follows before 
        the semicolon.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
* 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. 00-40816 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSÉ SANTOS-JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-00-CR-161-1

-------------------- February 15, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * José Santos-Jimenez appeals the sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. His argument that his prior felony conviction is an element of the offense, rather than a sentencing factor, is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). He concedes as much, but he raises the issue to preserve it for possible review by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1606

AN ACT

To extend for 9 additional months the period for which

chapter 12 of title 11, United States Code, is reenacted.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1606 ES

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

2 Section 149 of title I of division C of Public Law

3 105–277, as amended by Public Law 106–5, is amended—

4 (1) by striking ‘‘October 1, 1999’’ each place it

5 appears and inserting ‘‘July 1, 2000’’; and

6 (2) in subsection (a)—

7 (A) by striking ‘‘March 31, 1999’’ and in8 serting ‘‘September 30, 1999’’; and

9 (B) by striking ‘‘April 1, 1999’’ and insert10 ing ‘‘October 1, 1999’’.

11 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

12 The amendments made by section 1 shall take effect

13 on October 1, 1999.

Passed the Senate September 30, 1999.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1606

AN ACT

To extend for 9 additional months the period for

which chapter 12 of title 11, United States Code,is reenacted.
#### DRISCOLL, Respondent, *v.*SHIELDS, Appellant.

(No. 1,412.)

(Submitted May 5, 1902.

Decided May 5, 1902.)

*Appeal*— *Rules of the Supreme (Jourl*— *Defective*Brief— *Dismissal.*

An appeal wherein the appellant’s brief contains no assignment of the errors relied on, as is required by Subdivision “b” of Rule X of the Supreme Court, will be dismissed on' respondent’s motion.

*Appeal from District*Court, *Silver Boto County; John*Lindsay, *Judge.*

ActioN by Dennis Driscoll against Dan Shields. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Dismissed.

*Mr. J. L. Wines,*for Appellant.

*Messrs. Mediation & Goiter,*for Respondent.

HR. CI-IIEE JUSTICE RRANTLY

delivered the opinion of the court..

Appeal by defendant from a judgment and an order denying him a new trial. At the hearing this day a motion is submitted asking that the appeal be dismissed for the reason, among others, that appellant’s brief filed in this court contains no assignment of the errors upon which he relies, as» is required by Subdivision “b” of Rule X of this court. Upon inspection of the brief, we find it wholly lacking in the particular mentioned. Upon the authority of *Patterson*v. *Pfouts,*25 Mont. 163, 64 Pac. 222, and other cases, the motion must be sustained.

*Dismissed.*
**Exhibit
      32.1**





Written
      Statement of the Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. §1350





Solely
      for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Chief
      Executive Officer of American Ecology Corporation (the “Company”), hereby
      certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
      Company for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.







/s/
                Stephen A. RomanoStephen
                A. RomanoMay
                1, 2006