alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4153]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-159-000]


Florida Gas Transmission Co.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

February 15, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 10, 1995, Florida Gas Transmission 
Company (FGT), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet:

Original Sheet No. 125A

    FGT states that its currently effective FERC Gas Tariff does not 
contain provisions for disposition of Unauthorized Gas delivered to 
FGT's system. Unauthorized Gas is defined in the proposed tariff 
provisions as volumes of gas delivered to FGT that FGT cannot identify 
as being delivered pursuant to a transportation nomination on behalf of 
an existing shipper.
    FGT proposes that upon becoming aware of Unauthorized Gas, FGT will 
post notice on its Electronic Bulletin Board (EBB) the volume, the 
production month received and the point of receipt of such volumes. 
From the date of posting, claimants will then have thirty (30) calendar 
days to provide evidence of ownership. If a valid claim is received in 
the thirty (30) day period, FGT will purchase the Unauthorized Gas at a 
price equal to eighty percent (80%) of the Tivoli Index, as contained 
in the Cash-Out Provisions of Section 14 of the General Terms and 
Conditions of FGT's tariff, for the month in which the Unauthorized Gas 
is delivered into FGT or the month of settlement, whichever is less.
    FGT states that it shall purchase a maximum of 12,000 MMBtu during 
a twelve (12) month calendar period from any single claimant or at any 
single receipt point. FGT has included these provisions to avoid 
becoming an unwilling ``purchaser of last resort'' for producers 
willing to accept 80% of the Tivoli Index who might intentionally 
deliver Unauthorized Gas to FGT. FGT believes the proposed changes 
provide an efficient and equitable mechanism for resolving Unauthorized 
Gas.
    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, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426 in accordance with Secs. 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should be filed on 
or before February 23, 1995. 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.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-4153 Filed 2-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency Provisions | Provisions Affecting Taxation of Benefits |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------|

| Number | Table and graph selection                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| H1     | Tax Social Security benefits in a manner similar to private pension        income beginning in 2009.  Phase out the lower-income thresholds during        2009-2018.              Summary measures and graphs         (PDF version)       Detailed single year tables         (PDF version)                  |
| H2     | Tax Social Security benefits in a manner similar to private pension        income beginning in 2009. Phase out the lower-income thresholds        during 2009-2028.              Summary measures and graphs         (PDF version)       Detailed single year tables         (PDF version)Related memorandum |
|        | Above provisions        Summary measures                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified May 12, 2009 |
### Proposed Provision: C2.3. Starting for those age 62 in 2024, index the normal retirement age (NRA) to maintain a constant ratio of expected retirement years (life expectancy at NRA) to potential work years (NRA minus 20). We assume the NRA will increase 1 month every 2 years. Also, increase the earliest eligibility age (EEA) by the same amount as the NRA starting for those age 62 in 2024 so as to maintain a 5 year difference between the two ages. Include a "hardship exemption" with no EEA/NRA change for a worker with 25 years of earnings (with 4 quarters of coverage each), and average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) less than 250 percent of the poverty level (wage-indexed from 2013). The hardship exemption is phased out for those with AIME above 400 percent of the poverty level.
#### Louis E. Blair, Appellant, v. Mary A. Oliver, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DORMEN LISBY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 235 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of October, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-72130, 33-58362, 333-3846, 333-35215, 333-40634, 333-50330 333-75134 and 333-114151 of Genta Incorporated on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 33-85887, 333-94181, 333-94185 and 333-101022 of Genta Incorporated on Form S-8 of our report dated March  16,  2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Genta Incorporated and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (Revised 2004), ‘‘Share-Based Payment’’) and of our report dated March  16,  2007, relating to management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Genta Incorporated for the year ended December  31,  2006.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Parsippany, New JerseyMarch  16,  2007

----
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 7820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3367]




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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Agency Meeting


``FEDERAL REGISTER'' CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: [60 FR 
6771, February 3, 1995]

STATUS: Open meeting.

PLACE: 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

DATE PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED: February 3, 1995.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: Deletion.
    The following items will not be considered at an open meeting 
scheduled for Wednesday, February 8, 1995, at 10:00 a.m.:

    Whether to adopt proposed rules 18f-3 and 6c-10 under the 
Investment Company Act of 1940, and related rule and form 
amendments. Rule 18f-3 would allow mutual funds to issue multiple 
classes of shares, and the form amendments would prescribe 
prospectus disclosure requirements for multiple class and master-
feeder funds. Rule 6c-10 would allow mutual funds to impose back-end 
loads, including contingent deferred sales loads; the form amendment 
would clarify that prospectus disclosure requirements for deferred 
sales loads apply to all types of back-end loads.
    Whether to propose for public comment amendments to rule 6c-10 
to allow mutual funds to impose sales loads paid in one or more 
installments. Related form amendments would prescribe prospectus 
disclosure requirements for installment loads.

    Commissioner Wallman, as duty officer, determined that Commission 
business required the above change and that no earlier notice thereof 
was possible.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact: The Office of the Secretary (202) 942-7070.

    Dated: February 7, 1995.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3367 Filed 2-7-95; 2:31 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
**Exhibit 32.04**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the GoRemote InternetCommunications, Inc. Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended July 31, 2005, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel W.Fairfax, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge based on a reviewof the Report: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periodcovered by the Report.

 

 
| Date: September 26, 2005 | By:    | /s/ DANIEL W. FAIRFAX                                     |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   | Daniel W. Fairfax                                         |
|                          |   | Senior Vice President & Chief  Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to GoRemote and will be retainedby GoRemote and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 4, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51151 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MIGUEL DERAS-VASQUEZ, also known as Cesar Acosta-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-876-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Miguel DerasVasquez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### STATE v. L. A. MUSE.

(Filed 26 February, 1941.)

1. Constitutional Law § 27—

When a defendant in a criminal prosecution in the Superior Court enters a plea of not guilty he may not, without changing his plea, waive his constitutional right of trial by jury, and the determinative facts cannot be referred to the decision of the court even by consent, but must be found by the jury.

2. Appeal and Error § 40g—

The Supreme Court will not venture an advisory opinion on a constitutional question unless it is properly presented, and will not decide such a question even then when the appeal may be properly determined on a question of less moment.

Appeal by defendant from *Warlick, J.,*at November Term, 1940, of Haywood.

Defendant was tried upon warrant charging violation of ch. 52, Public Laws 1931, as amended, in that he did engage in plumbing contracting business without first having obtained license so to do.

The record discloses that the defendant “pleaded not guilty to the charge and moved to quash the warrant,” and that “said motion was overruled,” and “after hearing the evidence for the State defendant moves for directed verdict of not guilty. Motion denied. Defendant rests and renews motion. Motion denied. Court enters verdict of guilty and enters judgment thereon that defendant pay a fine of $100.00 and the costs.”

*227It appears from the brief of appellant-that he seeks to test the constitutionality of the act under which he was indicted.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.*

*Cecil C. Jackson for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

The Attorney-General confesses error.

When a defendant in a criminal prosecution in the Superior Court enters a plea of not guilty he may not, without changing his plea, waive his constitutional right of trial by jury, *S. v. Hill,*209 N. C., 53, 182 S. E., 716, the determinative facts cannot be referred to the decision of the court even by consent — they must be found by the jury. *S. v. Allen,*166 N. C., 265, 80 S. E., 1075.

The Supreme Court will not venture an advisory opinion on a constitutional question unless it is properly presented, and will not decide such a question even then when the appeal may be properly determined on a question of less moment. *S. v. Lueders,*214 N. C., 558, 200 S. E., 22.

Since it appears that there is no verdict upon which a valid judgment could be based, the case must be remanded to the Superior Court for trial according to the usual course and practice. *S. v. Lueders, supra.*

Error and remanded.
JOHN MCKAY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-5383

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 12, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Gadsden County.

Jonathan E. Sjostrom, Judge.

John McKay, pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM






Board of Directors and Stockholders
Nittany Financial Corp.

We  have  reviewed  the  accompanying  consolidated  balance  sheet  of  Nittany
Financial  Corp.  and  subsidiaries  as  of  June  30,  2005,  and  the  related
consolidated statement of income for the three-month and six-month periods ended
June  30,  2005  and  2004,  and  the  consolidated   statement  of  changes  in
stockholders'  equity for the  six-month  period  ended June 30,  2005,  and the
consolidated  statement of cash flows for the  six-month  periods ended June 30,
2005  and  2004.  These  financial  statements  are  the  responsibility  of the
Company's management.

We conducted  our review in  accordance  with  standards  of the Public  Company
Accounting  Oversight  Board  (United  States).  A review of  interim  financial
information consists principally of applying analytical  procedures to financial
data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with standards of the Public Company  Accounting  Oversight Board, the objective
of which is the  expression of an opinion  regarding  the  financial  statements
taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the accompanying  financial  statements referred to above for them to
be in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously  audited,  in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting  Oversights Board (United States),  the consolidated balance sheet as
of December 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes
in stockholders'  equity,  and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
herein);  and in our report dated March 16, 2005, except for Note 18 as to which
the date is March  28,  2005,  we  expressed  an  unqualified  opinion  on those
consolidated financial statements.


/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

Wexford, PA

July 15, 2005
#### LETISHA BUTNER RAMSAY v. FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

(Filed 14 December, 1932.)

Appeal by defendant from *Clement, J.,*at January Term, 1932, of YaNCey.

No error.

Tbis is an action to recover on certain policies of insurance issued by the defendant.- In its answer, the defendant denied liability, chiefly, on its allegations that the issuance of the policies was procured by false and fraudulent representations made by the plaintiff in her applications for said policies. These allegations were denied in the reply filed by the plaintiff.

The issues raised by the pleadings were submitted to the jury, and were answered in accordance with the contentions of the plaintiff.

From judgment on the verdict, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Charles Hutchins and Waison & Fonts for plaintiff.*

*Bourne, Parker, Bernard & DuBose for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

On its appeal to this Court, the defendant relies solely on its contention that there was error in the refusal of the trial court to allow its motions (1) that the action be dismissed as of nonsuit, and (2) that the verdict be set aside, upon the ground that all the evidence showed that the policies sued on- were procured by false and fraudulent representations as alleged in the answer of the defendant. This contention cannot be sustained. There was conflict in the evidence as to whether or not plaintiff had appendicitis eight or nine years prior to the commencement of the action. The evidence was properly submitted to the jury under instructions to which there were no exceptions. The judgment was in accordance with the verdict and the stipulation of the parties. It is affirmed.

No error.
#### EFTHIMIOS MARIAKAKIS and VIRGINIA MARIAKAKIS v. S. D. JENNINGS, R. G. HANCOCK and L. J. PHIPPS, Trustee.

(Filed 4 June, 1958.)

Injunctions § 8—

Where the findings of fact of the court establishing the primary equity are supported by evidence, and defendants are fully protected by the provisions of the order continuing the injunction, and harm might result to plaintiffs from dissolution, order continuing the temporary restraining order to the final hearing will be affirmed.

Appeal by defendants Jennings and Hancock from *Carr, J.,*in Chambers, Graham, N. C., April 5, 1958, of OeaNGe.

Civil action to restrain defendants from exercising power of sale in a second deed of trust conveying real property as security for a certain note executed by one J. C. Parsons, — subject to which plaintiffs purchased the property.

*557A temporary restraining order was issued by *Hobgood, J.,*with order to show cause before *Carr, J.,*why same should not be continued to final determination of the action.

Upon hearing on verified pleadings, treated as affidavits, and other affidavits filed, *Carr, J.,*made findings of fact tending to show issues raised as to whether defendants may lawfully declare payment of the note in default, and concluded “that under the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence in this case it would be harsh, unjust, oppressive and inequitable for defendants to proceed with the foreclosure,” and thereupon ordered that the temporary order of injunction be continued to final hearing on the issues raised in the pleadings and the evidence in the case, subject to right of defendants to move to have the restraining order vacated, if the installments of interest as required by the note held by defendants are not paid according to terms of the note as they fall due, and requiring bond in the amount of $1,000.00 to indemnify defendants from damages that they may sustain, if upon final hearing the issues be determined against plaintiffs.

Defendants Jennings and Hancock except thereto, and appeal to Supreme Court and assign error.

*Henry A. Whitfield for plaintiff, appellees.*

*William S. Steioart for defendant, appellants.*

Per Curiam.

It appearing from the record (1) that the findings of fact made by the judge, who heard the case, are supported by evidence; (2) that defendants are fully protected by the provisions of the order continuing injunction, hence no harm can come to defendants, and (3) that harm can come to plaintiffs by foreclosure sale; this Court holds that the order from which appeal is taken should be, and is

Affirmed.
**Exhibit      32.1**

| (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 results of operations of the              Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                                                                                       |                                  |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                       | /s/ David              F. Hakala |
|   | David              F. Hakala                                                                                                               |
|   | Chief                Executive Officer, Chief OperatingOfficer                and Principal Financial andAccounting                Officer |