alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64041-64042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30308]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM96-3-34-000]


Florida Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

December 7, 1995.
    Take notice that on December 1, 1995, Florida Gas Transmission 
Company (FGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective 
January 1, 1996:

Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 8A
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 8A.01
Third Revised Sheet No. 8A.02

    FGT states that Section 27 of the General Terms and Conditions 
(GTC) of its Tariff provides for the recovery by FGT of gas used in the 
operation of its system and gas lost from the system or otherwise 
unaccounted for. The Fuel Reimbursement Charge established pursuant to 
Section 27 consists of the Current Fuel Reimbursement Charge and the 
Annual Fuel Surcharge.
    The Annual Fuel Surcharge is computed for each twelve-month 
Recovery Period beginning each January 1 and is designed to refund or 
collect, on an in-kind basis, the balance of the Deferred Fuel Account 
as of the preceding August 31. On May 1, 1995 FGT filed in Docket No. 
TM95-5-34 to adjust its initial Annual Fuel Surcharge to include 
volumes recorded in the Deferred Fuel Account between September 1, 1994 
and February 28, 1995. This was done, in part, to segregate the balance 
in the Deferred Fuel Account related to pre-Phase III expansion 
activity from any ovFGT's Phase III expansion was placed in service on 
March 1, 1995.
    Pursuant to Section 27 of the GTC of its Tariff, FGT, is filing 
herein to revise the Annual Fuel Surcharge to be effective January 1, 
1996 to recover the net under recovery of fuel volumes recorded in the 
Deferred Fuel Account between March 1, 1995 and August 31, 1995. The 
Annual Fuel Surcharge now will be applicable to all market area 
shippers on FGT's system, including shippers under FGT's Rate Schedule 
FTS-2.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. Pursuant to Section 154.210 of the Commission's 
Regulations, all such motions or protests must be filed not later than 
12 days after the date of the filing noted above. 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 

[[Page 64042]]
inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30308 Filed 12-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 573 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 573

    To amend Public Law 93-435 with respect to the Northern Mariana 
 Islands, providing parity with Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American 
                                 Samoa.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2013

   Mr. Sablan (for himself, Mr. Young of Alaska, Ms. Bordallo, Mrs. 
Napolitano, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Connolly, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. David Scott 
  of Georgia, Ms. Norton, Mr. Moran, Mr. Honda, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. 
    Grijalva, Mr. Markey, Mr. Peterson, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. 
 Gutierrez, Mr. Grayson, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Jones, Mr. Costa, 
Mr. Pierluisi, Ms. Hanabusa, Mr. George Miller of California, Ms. Chu, 
    Mr. Tonko, Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Gabbard, Mr. Farr, Mr. Holt, Mr. 
   Dingell, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Scott of 
Virginia, and Mr. Castro of Texas) introduced the following bill; which 
           was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend Public Law 93-435 with respect to the Northern Mariana 
 Islands, providing parity with Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American 
                                 Samoa.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.

    (a) In General.--The first section and section 2 of Public Law 93-
435 (48 U.S.C. 1705, 1706) are amended by inserting ``the Commonwealth 
of the Northern Mariana Islands,'' after ``Guam,'' each place it 
appears.
    (b) References to Date of Enactment.--For the purposes of the 
amendment made by subsection (a), each reference in Public Law 93-435 
to the ``date of enactment'' shall be considered to be a reference to 
the date of the enactment of this section.
                                 <all>
```
United States Navy-Marine Corps

Court of Criminal Appeals

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Patrick C. DELANNEY

Hospital Corpsman Petty Officer Third Class (E-4), U.S. Navy

Appellant

No. 201800318

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary.

Decided: 17 April 2019.

Military Judge: 

Commander Shane E. Johnson, JAGC, USN.

Sentence adjudged 12 July 2018 by a general court-martial convened 

at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, consisting of a military 

judge sitting alone. Sentence approved by convening authority: reduction to E-1, confinement for 12 years, and a dishonorable discharge.

For Appellant: 

Captain Bree A. Ermentrout, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: 

Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

Before FULTON, HITESMAN, and GERDING, 

Appellate Military Judges.
United States v. Delanney, No. 201800318

2

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to the appellant’s 

substantial rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.

The findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority are 

AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 5125    Filed: 12/16/19    Entered: 12/16/19 11:39:23    Page 1 of6

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 5125    Filed: 12/16/19    Entered: 12/16/19 11:39:23    Page 2 of6

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 5125    Filed: 12/16/19    Entered: 12/16/19 11:39:23    Page 3 of6

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 5125    Filed: 12/16/19    Entered: 12/16/19 11:39:23    Page 4 of6

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 5125    Filed: 12/16/19    Entered: 12/16/19 11:39:23    Page 5 of6

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 5125    Filed: 12/16/19    Entered: 12/16/19 11:39:23    Page 6 of6
#### In the Matter of Commissioner of Social Services et al., on Behalf of A. Children, Respondents, v Olu S., Appellant. Little Flower for Children Services, Respondent.

Submitted February 5, 1995;

decided April 4, 1996

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion to vacate, dismissed upon the ground that that order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
EX-35.2
(logo) CHASE



SUBSERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT


RE: GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-1F: This Assignment, Assumption and Recognition
Agreement made this 28th day of February 2007, (this "Assignment Agreement") is
among JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association ("JPMorgan"), as servicer (in
such capacity, the "Servicer"), GS Mortgage Securities Corp., as assignee (the
"Assignee") and Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company ("GSMC"), as assignor (the
"Assignor")

The undersigned, each a duly authorized officer of Chase Home Finance LLC
("CHF"), do hereby certify that:

(1) CHF is a Subservicer under the Agreement

(2) A review of the activities of CHF during the calendar year ending December
31, 2007 and of the performance of CHF under the Agreement has been made under
our supervision; and

(3) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, CHF has fulfilled all
its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such
year.

Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned
in the Agreement.

Date: 02/28/2008


Chase Home Finance LLC,
as Subservicer

By: /s/ Kim Greaves
Name: Kim Greaves
Title: Senior Vice President
Servicing Manager


By: /s/ Jim Miller
Name: Jim Miller
Title: Senior Vice President
Default Servicing Manager
# I;J UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

# FILED FEB - 42009 ALFRED WAYNE LEE, NANCYMAYERWHITIINGTON,CLERK U.S. DISTRICTCOURT Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Respondents. Civil ActionNo.



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# 09 0209

This matter comes before the Court on consideration ofPetitioner'spro se petition and application to proceed informapauperis. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the petition. Petitioner, who describes himselfas "[a] BlackPerson ofAfrican Ancestry," Pet. at 1 (caption), alleges that he submitted a request to the United States Attorney for the Southern District ofFlorida for information pertaining to the decision to bring criminal charges against Petitioner in federal court rather than state court. Id. at 2. He contends that the federal district court was withoutjurisdiction, and he attributes the decision to prosecute federal charges against him to discrimination based onhis race. See id. at 14-29. When Petitionerreceived no response to several requests for this information, he states that he submitted letters ofpetition to the Inspector General ofthe United States Department ofJustice and to the Director ofthe Federal Bureau ofInvestigation. Id. at 3-6. In this action, he asks the Court "to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the
... Inspector General & Director ofthe FBI to complywith 28 U.S.C.

1 

# 3§535(a)(b) [sic], byinitiating/conducting an investigation ofhis formal petition." Id. at 32. The Court has no powerto compel the Attorney General orhis subordinates to conduct an investigation into the matters about which Petitioner complains. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974) (acknowledging that the Executive Branch "has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case"); Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234, 234-35 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (per curiam), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 906 (1966) ("[T]he question of whether and when prosecution is to be instituted is within the discretion ofthe Attorney General. Mandamus will not lie to control the exercise ofthis discretion."). Because Petitioner fails to state a claim upon which reliefcanbe granted, the Court will dismiss this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l). An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately on this same date.

Date:

## ~ 

# .;}.8)**~t)Q'i**

2
* Pursua nt to 5 T H 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

March 10, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20414

Summary Calendar

AARON GREENLEE,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DEAN DARREN ALLREAD, Etc.; ET AL.,

Defendants,

DEAN DARREN ALLRED, individually and in his official

capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Harris County,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(4:01-CV-1335)

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Dean Darren Allred, a former deputy sheriff for Harris County,

Texas, pur sues this interlocutory appeal from the denial of his

qualified immunity claim for a false arrest claim brought pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Aaron Greenlee. We have j urisdiction to

determine, as a matter of law, whether a defendant is entitled to

qualified immunity, after accepting all of the plaintiff’s factual2

allegations as true, by determining whether those facts show, inter

alia

, that the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable under

clearly established law at the time of the conduct. E.g., Kinney

v. Weaver

, 367 F.3d 337, 346-50 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). (We

need not reach whether Allred reasonably relied on the field test

he conducted to determine probable cause.)

The district court ruled that, based upon our court’s

precedent, the arrest could not be supported by the probable cause

that existed for the traffic violations discovered by Allred before

and during his stop of Greenlee’s vehicle. The Supreme Court’s

decision in Devenpeck v. Alford

, 125 S. Ct. 588, 593-95 (2004),

abrogates our court’s rule that the uncharged offense establishing

probable cause be related to, and based upon the same conduct as,

the offense identified by the arresting officer at the time of the

arrest, see Trejo v. Perez , 693 F.2d 482, 485-86 (5th Cir. 1982),

or given by the officer at booking, see Gassner v. City of Garland

,

864 F.2d 394, 398 (5th Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s determinations in

regard to Allred’s sum mary judgment motion based upon qualified

immunity and REMAND t he case to the district court for

consideration in the light of the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in

Devenpeck

. (On remand, should the district court continue to deny

qualified immunity and should Allred pursue another interlocutory3

appeal, the field-test issue not reached in this opinion will be

subject to our review, should Allred again present it.)

VACATED AND REMANDED
#### Norbert Recktenwalt, Plaintiff, *v.*L. J. Donovan, Defendant.

City Court of Buffalo, Erie County,

October 29, 1936.

*110
      *William J. Sernoffsky,*for the plaintiff.

No appearance on behalf of the defendant.

Woltz, J.

This is an application on behalf of the plaintiff to take a default judgment against the defendant, who was served with process, pursuant to section 52 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The proof presented by the plaintiff shows that the summons and complaint was served on the Secretary of State by delivering to and leaving with a clerk in the office of the Secretary of State at Buffalo, a copy of the summons and complaint in the above-entitled action and the mailing of another copy of the summons and complaint by registered mail to the defendant at Windmill Point, Ontario.

The question presented is whether or not the City Court of Buffalo has jurisdiction over the subject-matter when service has been obtained on the Secretary of State pursuant to section 52 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, within the territorial limitations of the city of Buffalo.

Section 52 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which was formerly section 285-a of the Highway Law, was enacted as chapter 54 of the Laws of 1929, as amended by chapter 57 of the Laws of 1930. That section does not state specifically that service must be made personally on the Secretary of State or upon a Deputy Secretary of State in the city of Albany as does section 217 of the General Corporation Law. It is regarded as sufficient that it be delivered to a clerk in his office or by mailing. It has been held that service in an action in the Municipal Court of the City of New York is valid if made at the office of the Secretary of State in New York city. *(Berkowitz*v. *Dunphy,*141 Misc. 561; *Salzman*v. *Attrean,*142 id. 245.)

It has also been held that such service is invalid if made on the Secretary of State in the city of Albany, inasmuch as that city is outside of the territorial jurisdictional limits of the Municipal Court. *(Heihs*v. *Reinberg,*136 Misc. 815.)

It is, therefore, my opinion that inasmuch as the courts of the city of New York have permitted that court to obtain jurisdiction when the service of a summons is had within the territorial jurisdictional limits, the City Court of Buffalo may also have jurisdiction as long as the process is served on the office of the Secretary of State in the city of Buffalo.

Judgment by default may be entered upon proof being presented.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2384

HALLIE N. STONE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SULLIVAN'S AUTO BODY, (Trading as) its assignees, and for successors in interest; RICHARD

L. SULLIVAN, JR., Owner, individually in his

private capacity; JOHN RICE, Manager,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-97-483-A)

Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 16, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hallie N. Stone, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Gillen Fenske, KALBAUGH,

PFUND & MESSERSMITH, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the denial of a discovery motion in the

underlying action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337

U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order

nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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 11.1



                        SAVVIS COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
   CALCULATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES
                             USED IN EPS CALCULATION
                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
For the Three-Months Ended                                              March 31, 2002
                                                                        --------------
<S>                                                                     <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding:
Common stock:
  Shares outstanding at beginning of period, net of 740,928
  shares subject to forfeiture .......................................     93,113,823

  Weighted average shares, net of treasury shares, issued or vested
  during the three months ended March 31, 2002
  (68,154 new shares issued)..........................................        272,725
                                                                        -------------
                                                                           93,386,548
                                                                        =============
Loss attributable to common shareholders .............................  $ (21,467,000)
                                                                        =============
Basic and diluted loss per share .....................................  $       (0.23)
                                                                        =============
</TABLE>
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                      OF
                          INTREGRATED CARBONICS CORP.

Mario Aiellot, President of INTEGRATED CARBONICS CORP. (the "Corporation")
certifies that:

1. The original articles were filed with the Office of the Secretary of
   State on October 10, 1997.

2. As of the date of this certificate shares of stock of the
   corporation have been issued.

3. Pursuant to a shareholders meeting at which in excess of 51%
   voted in favor of the following amendment, the company hereby
   adopts the following amendments to the Articles of Incorporation
   of this Corporation:

Article I: The Name of the Corporation:

The Name of the Corporation will be URBANA.CA, INC.

                               /s/  Mario Aiello
                                    Mario Aiello, President

                              /s/  Robert S. Tyson
                                   Robert S. Tyson, Secretary

Province of British Columbia
Country of Canada

On July 16, 1999, Mario Aiello personally appeared before me, a
Notary public,  who acknowledged that he executed the above instrument.

                                   /s/
                                   A Notary Public in the Province of
                                   British Columbia, Canada

Province of British Columbia
Country of Canada


On July 16, 1999, Robert S. Tyson personally appeared before me,
a Notary public, who acknowledged that he executed the above
instrument.


                                  /s/
                                  A Notary Public in the Province of
                                  British Columbia, Canada
#### Cyrus C. Wilcox v. Perry Calkins and another.

Motion denied.

*Per Curiam*

memorandum filed with the clerk of Oneida.