alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12826]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Bonneville Power Administration


Templates (New Power Sales Contracts) and Amendatory Agreement 
No. 7

AGENCY: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy 
(DOE).

ACTION: Notice of availability of Record of Decision (ROD).

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of the ROD to offer 
BPA's public utility customers choices about their business 
relationships with BPA over the next 5 years. One choice being offered 
is for the public utility customers, and potentially other types of 
customers, to negotiate a new tailored contract for firm load 
requirements service based on contract templates that have been 
negotiated through a public process and comment period. Requirements 
service is the firm power products that a BPA customer has a right to 
purchase from BPA for the customer's general firm power load 
requirements and its new large single loads. Contracts based on the 
templates will be available at least through August 1, 1996.
    The other key choice BPA is offering is an opportunity to amend 
their 1981 or 1984 Power Sales Contracts. With Amendatory Agreement No. 
7, BPA is offering terms that will address certain changes in the 
electric power marketplace and in the needs of BPA customers. This 
amendment is offered in the context of the market-driven approach 
selected in BPA's Business Plan process. This amendment is planned to 
be the final step in a sequence of offers to public utility customers 
intended to strengthen BPA's competitive position in the electric power 
market and to strengthen its business relationships with its customers. 
This decision is consistent with BPA's Business Plan, the Business Plan 
Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0183, June 1995), and the 
Business Plan ROD (August 15, 1995).

ADDRESSES: Copies of this ROD, the Business Plan Environmental Impact 
Statement, and the Business Plan ROD may be obtained by calling BPA's 
toll-free document request line: 1-800-622-4520.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Katherine S. Pierce--EC, Bonneville 
Power Administration, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon, 97208-3621, 
phone number (503) 230-3962, fax number (503) 230-5699.

    Issued in Portland, Oregon, on May 13, 1996.
Randall W. Hardy,
Administrator and Chief Executive Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-12826 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 20809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11470]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Notice of Intent To Prepare Environmental Assessment for the 
Realignment, McChord AFB, WA

    The United States Air Force (USAF) will prepare an Environmental 
Assessment (EA) with the potential for an Environmental Impact 
Statement to assess the potential environmental impacts of the basing 
48 C-17 aircraft to McChord AFB, south of Tacoma, Washington. The 
beddown of the C-17 aircraft at McChord is necessary to best support 
the Nation's military strategy, and airlift needs. The proposed action 
would fulfill wartime requirements and peacetime training needs while 
providing a replacement for the retiring C-141 aircraft.
    The proposed realignment would locate C-17 aircraft, associated 
personnel, units, and equipment to McChord and entails approximately 
$120M in construction on the base. Under the No Action alternative, no 
aircraft would be based at McChord since the C-141 aircraft are being 
retired as part of a separate action.
    The Air Force will conduct a public meeting to ensure that the 
analysis addresses the appropriate scope of issues and depth of 
analysis for the proposed action. Public comments will be considered in 
the preparation of the EA. Notice of the date, time, and location of 
the meeting will be made available to public officials, the community, 
and the news media at a later date. Written comments on the scope of 
alternatives and impacts will also be accepted and considered.
    To ensure that the Air Force will have sufficient time to consider 
all appropriate comments, please forward comments to the address listed 
below by June 7, 1996. The Air Force will accept appropriate input any 
time throughout this process. If the Air Force were to decide to 
propose an EIS, this process may be substituted for the scoping process 
that would normally precede an EIS.
    Please direct any written comments of requests for further 
information concerning this action to: Mr. Michael Grenko, 62 SPTG/CEV, 
555 A. Street, McChord AFB, WA 98438-1325, (206) 984-3913.
Patsy J. Conner,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-11470 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3910-01-W
* 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 June 24, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-31050 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERT KENNEDY, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CR-305-1-T

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert Kennedy appeals his 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute dilaudid. Kennedy argues that the district court impermissibly relied upon his status as a drug addict in imposing the statutory maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment. Kennedy did not object timely to the sentence that was imposed; in the absence of such an objection,No. 02-31050 -2- this court’s review is for plain error only. See United States v. Gonzalez , 250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir. 2001). Kennedy’s argument that his sentence was based solely on his status as a drug addict is not supported by the record. The sentence imposed punished Kennedy for violating the terms of his supervised release, not for his history of drug addiction. See United States v. Pena , 125 F.3d 285, 287-88 (5th Cir. 1997). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of EYI Industries, Inc.
  (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A-1 for the fiscal year ended December
  31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates
  indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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 operation of
  the Company.

|Date: | December 15, 2004 | By:    | /s/ Rajesh Raniga      
|----- | ----------------- | ------ | -----------------------
|      |                   | Name:  | Rajesh Raniga          
|      |                   | Title: | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
  906, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting
  the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
  written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to EYI Industries,
  Inc. and will be retained by EYI Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
  and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

|NAME                                            |  | JURISDICTION OF FORMATION
|----------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------
|CM Intermediary, LLC                            |  | Delaware                 
|Crown Media International, LLC                  |  | Delaware                 
|Crown Media United States, LLC                  |  | Delaware                 
|Crown Media Distribution, LLC                   |  | Delaware                 
|Crown Entertainment Limited                     |  | England and Wales        
|Crown Media International (HK) Limited          |  | Hong Kong                
|HEN LLC                                         |  | Delaware                 
|HEN (L), Ltd.                                   |  | Labuan, Malaysia         
|Hallmark India Private, Limited                 |  | India                    
|Citi TeeVee, LLC                                |  | Delaware                 
|Doone City Pictures, LLC                        |  | Delaware                 
|Waygoose Concerts Services B.V.                 |  | The Netherlands          
|Crown Media International (Australia) Pty. Ltd. |  | Australia                

---

QuickLinks
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 207PA14

11 June 2015

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

CURTIS MARIO BENTON

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous, 

unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 762 S.E.2d 1 (2014), 

reversing an order entered on 25 April 2013 by Judge Ronald E. Spivey, and vacating 

a judgment dated 6 May 2013 and entered on 15 May 2013 by Judge David L. Hall, 

in Superior Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 19 March 2015.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Derrick C. Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, 

for the State-appellant.

Mark L. Hayes for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In State v. Jackson, the Court of Appeals concluded in a divided opinion that 

the stop of the defendant in that case, Tiyoun Jimek Jackson, was not supported by 

reasonable suspicion. ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 758 S.E.2d 39, 46 (2014). Based on its 

opinion in Jackson, the Court of Appeals concluded that the stop of the defendant in 

this companion case, Curtis Mario Benton, was also not supported by reasonable 

suspicion. State v. Benton, ___ N.C. App. ___, 762 S.E.2d 1, 2014 WL 2507700, at *1
STATE V. BENTON

Opinion of the Court

-2-

(2014) (unpublished). On appeal to this Court, we concluded that the stop of 

defendant Jackson was supported by reasonable suspicion, and we therefore reversed 

the decision of Court of Appeals. State v. Jackson, ___ N.C. ___, ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 

___ (June 11, 2015) (183A14). Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals in 

State v. Benton, ___ N.C. App. ___, 762 S.E.2d 1 (2014) is vacated and remanded to 

that court for reconsideration in light of our opinion in State v. Jackson, ___ N.C. ___, 

___ S.E.2d ___ (2015). 

VACATED AND REMANDED.
EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in (i) Registration Statements Nos. 333-50260 and
333-132638 of Beacon Power Corporation on Form S-8 and (ii) Registration Statements Nos. 333-137071, 333-145165,
333-145536, 333-152140, and 333-156312 of Beacon Power Corporation on Form S-3 of our report dated March 12, 2009 appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Beacon Power Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2008.

/s/
Miller Wachman LLP

Boston,
MA
March 12, 2009

---



QuickLinks
1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Strouse,

 Plaintiff, 

 v.

D Madrid, et al.,

 Defendants.

CASE NO:

CV−17−00562−TUC−RCC (PSOT)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT

 On November 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint which has been assigned

the case number listed above. This case has been assigned to District Court

Judge Raner C Collins and the Court's Legal Staff. When any action is

taken in this case, you will be notified by Court order.

 DATED this 16th day of November, 2017.

s/Brian D. Karth

Brian D. Karth

District Court Executive/Clerk

cc: Plaintiff

Case 4:17-cv-00562-RCC-PSOT Document 3 Filed 11/16/17 Page 1 of 2
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WARNING!

Failure to comply with the following rules will result in your document being STRICKEN

and/or your case being DISMISSED:

(1) You must file a Notice of Change of Address if your address changes.

(2) You must correctly label any further documents with the above assigned

 caption and case numbers. LRCiv 7.1(a).

(3) You must sign your name and date every document you file. FED. R. CIV. P. 11.

(4) If applicable, you must provide an original and one copy of any document to

 be filed. If you request a conformed copy, you must provide an original

 and two (2) copies. LRCiv 5.4. This does not apply to prisoner e−filers.

(5) If applicable, you must mail copies of every document you file to all respondents.

 or their attorneys, FED. R. CIV. P. 5(a), and every document you file

 must include a certificate stating the date a copy of the document was mailed

 to respondents or their attorneys. This does not apply to prisoner e−filers.

(6) The documents you file must not include personal identifiers. FED. R. CIV. P. 5.2.

Case 4:17-cv-00562-RCC-PSOT Document 3 Filed 11/16/17 Page 2 of 2
H. Res. 365 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 28, 2009. 

Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule 

XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House 

is waived with respect to any resolution reported on the legislative day of April 28, 2009, providing for consideration or 

disposition of a conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal 

year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal 

year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels 

for fiscal years 2011 through 2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Huda Ahmed, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Andrew Saul, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-17-0573-TUC-BGM 

ORDER 

 Currently pending before the Court is the Parties’ Stipulated Motion for Award 

Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 26 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (Doc. 21). 

Having reviewed the same, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

the Parties’ motion (Doc. 21) is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff be awarded attorney’s fees of 

$2,327.02 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 

EAJA fees awarded by this Court belong to the Plaintiff and are subject to offset 

under the Treasury Offset Program (31 U.S.C. § 3716(c)(3)(B) (2006)). See Astrue v. 

Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 595–98, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2528–29, 177 L.Ed.2d 91 (2010). As 

such, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if, after receiving this Order, the Commissioner 

determines upon its effectuation that Plaintiff does not owe a debt that is subject to offset 

under the Treasury Offset Program, fees will be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorneys. If, 

however, there is a debt owed that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, 

the remaining EAJA fees after offset will be paid by a check made out to Plaintiff, but 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

delivered to Plaintiff’s attorneys. Any check for EAJA fees shall be mailed to Plaintiff’s 

counsel at the following address: Hallinan & Killpack Law Firm, 5240 East Pima Street, 

Tucson, Arizona 85712. 

 Dated this 31st day of July, 2019.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 97 (Friday, May 17, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12414]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[CO-050-1630-00]


Establishment of Supplementary Rules

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Establishment of supplementary rules prohibiting the possession 
and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages by persons under 21 years of 
age, the possession of a handgun by persons under 18 years of age or 
the possession of drug paraphernalia by any person while on public 
lands.

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

SUMMARY: The possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages by 
underage persons, the possession of handguns by juveniles and/or the 
possession of drug paraphernalia are all growing problems on public 
lands. The implementation and enforcement of these rules by BLM law 
enforcement officers will help to protect and promote the public peace, 
health, safety and welfare of the users of public lands and reduce the 
destruction of natural resources that are associated with these 
activities.
    This rule adopts Colorado Revised Statutes (18-13-122) dealing with 
the illegal possession or consumption of ethyl alcohol by an underage 
person, Colorado Revised Statutes (18-12-108.5) dealing with possession 
of handguns by juveniles, and Colorado Revised Statutes (18-18-428) 
dealing with possession of drug paraphernalia in a manner consistent 
with Colorado Revised Statutes on all BLM administered lands within the 
Canon City District, State of Colorado.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These restrictions will be effective May 17, 1996 and 
will remain in effect until rescinded or modified by the authorized 
officer.

ADDRESSES: Canon City District Office, 3170 East Main St., Canon City, 
Colorado 81212.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack H. Hagan, District Law 
Enforcement Ranger, at (719) 269-8535.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The authority for these restrictions is 
provided in 43 CFR 8365.1-4 and 43 CFR 8365.1-6. Violation of these 
restrictions are punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or 
imprisonment not to exceed 12 months as authorized in 43 CFR 8360-7.
Stuart L. Freer,
Associate District Manager.
[FR Doc. 96-12414 Filed 5-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 USC, SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

          In connection with the quarterly report of Peer Review Mediation and Arbitration, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Dated: May 15, 2009 | s/Willis Hale_____________________________   |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------|

|   | Willis Hale, Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|--------------------------------------|

 

 

| Dated: May 15, 2009 | s/Marc Combs___________________________ |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------------|

|   | Marc Combs, Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------------------------|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

STEVEN BYINGTON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10639

D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00349-GMN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2015** 

Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Steven Byington appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

his jury-trial convictions and 168-month sentence for receipt of child pornography,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2552A(a)(2) and (b); and possession of child

pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2552A(a)(5)(B). We have jurisdiction

FILED

APR 24 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm Byington’s sentence, but vacate the judgment

and remand with instructions.

Byington contends that the court procedurally erred by failing to explain

why it sentenced Byington on the receipt conviction and by failing to clearly

vacate the possession count. He also argues that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable. 

As the government concedes, Byington’s convictions for both receipt of

child pornography and possession of child pornography based on the same conduct

violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. See United States v. Davenport,

519 F.3d 940, 947 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, the possession count must be vacated. 

However, we decline Byington’s invitation to vacate his sentence. Contrary to

Byington’s contention, the record makes clear why the court chose to sentence him

on the receipt count. The court adopted the Guidelines range that corresponded to

the receipt count and, based on its evaluation of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing

factors, concluded that a sentence within that range was appropriate. It expressly

stated that a sentence below that range was “completely out of the question.” This

explanation is sufficient. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.

2008) (en banc). Moreover, Byington’s low-end sentence is not substantively

2 13-10639
unreasonable in light of the section 3553(a) factors and the totality of the

circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Accordingly, we affirm Byington’s sentence, but remand with instructions to

the district court to vacate the possession count, allowing for that count to be

reinstated without prejudice if Byington’s receipt conviction should be overturned

on direct or collateral review. See Davenport, 519 F.3d at 948.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED and REMANDED with instructions.

3 13-10639