alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 30053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14994]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-265-000]


PECO Energy Company v. Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, 
Notice of Complaint

June 7, 1996.
    Take notice that on June 3, 1996, PECO Energy Company (PECO Energy) 
tendered for filing a complaint against Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Eastern.) PECO Energy requests that the Commission 
order Texas Eastern to provide service on Line 1-A of the Philadelphia 
Lateral so that: PECO Energy can meet 1996-1997 winter heating 
requirements on its system.
    Specifically, PECO Energy states that it has sought increased 
deliverability off the Philadelphia Lateral due to increased load 
growth. Texas Eastern originally offered to build a new lateral 
adjacent to Line 1-H of the Philadelphia Lateral at a cost in excess of 
$30 million.
    Accordingly to PECO Energy it subsequently discovered that there 
was an existing lateral adjacent to Line 1-A. Line 1-A is an existing 
certificated facility. Texas Eastern neither has requested nor received 
abandonment authorization for Line 1-A.
    PECO Energy further states that Texas Eastern then offered to make 
Line 1-A available for service but only on the condition that PECO 
Energy pay Texas Eastern $4.58 million for hydrostatic testing and a 
regulating facility. PECO Energy avers that Texas Eastern is 
responsible for such costs given the certificated status of Line 1-A, 
and that PECO Energy should be responsible only for the cost of two new 
delivery points.
    PECO Energy states that it has served copies of the complaint by 
express delivery to representatives of Texas Eastern.
    Texas Eastern shall file any answer to the complaint with the 
Commission on or before July 3, 1996 in accordance with Section 385.213 
of the Commission's Rules and Regulations.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said complaint should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Rules 214 and 211 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure 18 CFR 385.214, 385.211. All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before July 3, 1996. 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. Answers to this complaint shall be 
due on or before July 3, 1996.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-14994 Filed 6-12 -96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, MARK McLEARY, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Candev Resource Exploration Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

|Date:  September 18, 2007 | /s/ Mark McLeary
Mark McLeary
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
|------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – TUCSON 

U.S. District Judge: Raner C. Collins Date: July 2, 2019 

USA v. Scott Daniel Warren Case Number: CR-18-00223-001-TUC-RCC (DTF)

Assistant U.S. Attorneys: Anna Wright/Nathaniel Walters 

Attorneys for Defendant: Gregory Kuykendall (via telephone)/Amy Knight (Retained) 

Attorney for Movant, First Look Media Works Incorporated: Gregg Leslie 

Interpreter: N/A 

Deputy Clerk: Sherry Gammon 

Court Reporter: Erica McQuillen 

Defendant: ☒ Present ☐ Not Present ☒ Released ☐ Custody ☐ Summons ☐ Writ 

Status Conference: 

Matter comes before the Court for a Status Conference re: trial status. 

The Government will proceed with a retrial as to Counts 2 and 3 of the Indictment, with Count 1 

of the Indictment to be dismissed. The Government will file a formal motion to dismiss Count 1 

and defense counsel may file written response as to the issue of with or without prejudice. 

The Government extends a plea offer as to Counts 2 and 3 of the Indictment to misdemeanor aiding 

and abetting illegal entry without inspection. 

The defendant waives his right to a speedy trial and this matter is set for trial, as to Counts 2 and 

3 of the Indictment, on 11/12/2019 at 9:30 a.m. before Senior Judge Raner C. Collins. Estimated 

length of trial is 8 days. Plea deadline is 11/1/2019. Excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7) 

is found to commence on 7/3/2019 and end on 11/12/2019. 

A Status Conference is set for 8/5/2019 at 1:30 p.m. before Senior Judge Raner C. Collins. 

Counsel may appear telephonically if necessary. 

Mr. Leslie informs the Court that First Amendment Clinic, Arizona State University, student Ryan 

Bailey, is prepared to present argument on behalf of the movant, First Look Media Works, Inc. 

The Government requests the Court set argument on a future date. IT IS ORDERED the Motion 

for a Hearing re: Motion to Intervene for Purposes of Unsealing (Doc. 203) filed by First Look 

Media Works, Inc. is Granted and a Motion Hearing re: Motion to Unseal Document Attached as 

Exhibits to Motions (Doc. 195) and Motion to Join Additional Parties to Motion to Intervene (Doc. 

248) filed by First Look Media Works, Inc. is set for 7/9/2019 at 1:30 p.m. before Senior Judge 

Raner C. Collins. 

 Status Conference: 18 Minutes

 Start: 9:35 AM 

 Stop: 9:53 AM 

 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 295 Filed 07/02/19 Page 1 of 1
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<MULTIPLIER>   1000

<S>                                      <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                          0
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                   41,549
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       293,797
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                      11,667
<OTHER-ASSETS>                             2,015,853
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             2,362,866
<COMMON>                                           0
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                     25,338
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                           14,325
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                39,663
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                       2,030,548
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                          0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                     0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                290,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                          0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                        0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 2,655
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>              2,362,866
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                          0
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               0
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     6,456
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     6,456
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                       (6,456)
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                           174,309
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>               167,853
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     161,487
<NET-INCOME>                                   6,366
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      0
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                          0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                       313,814
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 792 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 792

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 18, 2010.
Whereas Robert Kelly Slater was born on February 11, 1972, in Cocoa Beach, 
        Florida;
Whereas Kelly Slater learned to surf in Cocoa Beach, Florida, with his brothers, 
        Sean and Stephen;
Whereas Kelly Slater was a perennial amateur champion in the 1980s, winning 6 
        Eastern Surfing Association titles and 4 national titles;
Whereas, in 1992, at the age of 20, Kelly Slater was the youngest surfer to win 
        the Association of Surfing Professionals World Championship;
Whereas, between 1992 and 2008, Kelly Slater was a 6-time winner of the 
        Billabong Pipeline Masters, a competition held annually for the 45 top-
        ranked surfers by the Association of Surfing Professionals at the Banzai 
        Pipeline in Oahu, Hawaii;
Whereas, between 1994 and 1998, Kelly Slater won 5 consecutive Association of 
        Surfing Professionals titles;
Whereas, in 1995 and 1998, Kelly Slater won the Triple Crown of Surfing, the 
        Reef Hawaiian Pro at Haleiwa Ali'i Beach Park, the O'Neill World Cup of 
        Surfing at Sunset Beach, and the Billabong Pipeline Masters at the 
        Banzai Pipeline;
Whereas Kelly Slater was inducted into the Surfers Hall of Fame in 2002;
Whereas, in 2002, Kelly Slater won the Quicksilver in Memory of Eddie Aikau at 
        Waimea Bay in Oahu, Hawaii, a competition that occurs only when waves 
        reach a minimum height of 20 feet;
Whereas Kelly Slater was the 1st surfer ever to be awarded 2 perfect scores in 
        the final heat of the Billabong Tahiti Pro Contest under the Association 
        of Surfing Professionals 2-wave scoring system;
Whereas Kelly Slater won an Association of Surfing Professionals World Title in 
        2005, 7 years after his previous win in 1998;
Whereas, in 2007, Kelly Slater started the Kelly Slater Foundation to raise 
        awareness and financial support for socially and environmentally 
        conscious charities;
Whereas, in 2008, at the age of 36, Kelly Slater was the oldest surfer to win an 
        Association of Surfing Professionals World Championship;
Whereas, in 2010, Kelly Slater won the Rip Curl Pro Bell Championship, making 
        him a 4-time winner of this 49-year-old international surfing 
        championship held in Australia;
Whereas Kelly Slater has 39 World Championship Tour victories;
Whereas Kelly Slater holds 9 Association of Surfing Professionals World 
        Championships, a record number; and
Whereas Kelly Slater is surfing's all-time leader in career event wins: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes and honors Robert 
Kelly Slater for winning the 2010 Rip Curl Pro Bell Championship and for his 
other outstanding achievements in the world of surfing.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Roger Dale HELMS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STINSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 65600.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Dec. 27, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 31, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied March 21, 1995.

Kenneth A. Leeds, Law Offices of Roskin & Leeds, Clayton, for appellant.

*758Louis J. Basso, Rabbitt, Pitzer & Snod-grass, P.C., St. Louis, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., and CRANDALL and WHITE, JJ.

*MEMORANDUM OPINION*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment based on a jury verdict in favor of defendant in a products liability case. He raises three points on appeal, all dealing with evidentiary rulings. The evidence to support the verdict was not insufficient. No error of law appears. The claims of evidentiary error were waived and/or not properly preserved for review and/or without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 812 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 812

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         March 2, 2010.
Whereas the Military Working Dog Program, or K-9 Corps, was developed in 1942, 
        shortly after the United States entered World War II;
Whereas all four branches of the United States Armed Forces as well as other 
        government agencies, including the Secret Service, Central Intelligence 
        Agency, and Transportation Security Administration, use Military Working 
        Dogs in service to the country;
Whereas Military Working Dogs are trained in explosive detection, narcotic 
        detection, sentry, patrol, tracking, and other specific areas;
Whereas Military Working Dogs, through their training, have prevented injuries 
        and saved the lives of thousands of United States citizens;
Whereas more than 19,000 Military Working Dogs were acquired by the United 
        States Armed Forces during World War II and of those 19,000, a little 
        more than 10,000 Military Working Dogs were utilized in the war effort;
Whereas more than 1,500 Military Working Dogs were employed during the Korean 
        War and 4,500 in the Vietnam War;
Whereas, since September 11, 2001, Military Working Dogs have served in Iraq and 
        Afghanistan and have been employed in detection work as part of homeland 
        security and defense efforts;
Whereas today approximately 2,000 Military Working Dogs serve at nearly 170 
        United States military bases worldwide, including bases in 40 States and 
        3 United States territories;
Whereas retired Military Working Dogs are recognized for their lifetime of 
        service in the United State Armed Forces; and
Whereas charitable organizations and community groups are recognized for their 
        work in coordination with the Department of Defense to help bring 
        Military Working Dogs stationed overseas home to the United States for 
        adoption when their active duty days are over and provide support to 
        active K-9 military teams worldwide: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the significant contributions of the Military Working 
        Dog Program to the United States Armed Forces;
            (2) honors active and retired Military Working Dogs for their loyal 
        service and dedication to protecting the men and women of the United 
        States Armed Forces; and
            (3) supports the adoption and care of these quality animals after 
        their service is over.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements listed below ofIndus International, Inc. of our reports dated June 10, 2005, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Indus International, Inc., Indus International, Inc. management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting of Indus International, Inc., included in this AnnualReport (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 2005:
1.  Registration Statement Number 333-36995 on Form S-82.  Registration Statement Number 333-44438 on Form S-83.  Registration Statement Number 333-64632 on Form S-84.  Registration Statement Number 333-70475 on Form S-85.  Registration Statement Number 333-104028 on Form S-36.  Registration Statement Number 333-107553 on Form S-87.  Registration Statement Number 333-107640 on Form S-38.  Registration Statement Number 333-112434 on Form S-89.  Registration Statement Number 333-113143 on Form S-310.  Registration Statement Number 333-118888 on Form S-311.  Registration Statement Number 333-120297 on Form S-8                                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP         
Atlanta, Georgia
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 

Michael Vail, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Kopper Crest Manor on Harris LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00908-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

Kopper Crest Manor on Harris LLC and 

Debera L. Kopp, 

Counterclaimants, 

v. 

Michael Vail and Sarah Gulley, 

Counterdefendants.

 On December 4, 2018, counsel for Plaintiffs Michael Vail and Sarah Gulley served 

requests for admission (“RFAs”) on Defendant Debera L. Kopp by mail and sent courtesy 

copies via email. (See Doc. 40.) Plaintiffs avow that they never received responses to the 

RFAs from Ms. Kopp. In a telephonic pre-motion conference held before the Court on 

February 8, 2019, Ms. Kopp represented to the Court that she was unaware of and had not 

received the RFAs. (Doc. 66 at 3–4, 6). 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unanswered requests for admission are 

deemed admitted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Plaintiffs move for summary judgment 
- 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 

primarily on the basis of Ms. Kopp’s admissions of the facts contained in the RFAs. In her 

Response to Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, Ms. Kopp now contends that she in fact 

responded to the RFAs within the thirty-day limit imposed by the Rules. (Doc. 58 at 2) 

(“Defendants answered the Plaintiffs [sic] Discovery Request in [sic] December 24, 2018 

to unsigned [sic] counsel’s legal assistant, Ashley Peschke.”). She has attached as exhibits 

to her Response the answers to the RFAs she claims she sent to Plaintiffs’ counsel, as well 

as the email containing those responses. (Doc. 59 at 4–8.) 

Both of Ms. Kopp’s assertions cannot be true. Either she made a false statement to 

the Court during the February 8 hearing, or she has now submitted false evidence in 

response to the motion for summary judgment. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED directing Defendant Debera L. Kopp to show 

cause why she should not be sanctioned for the creation of evidence that is out of time. 

Defendant is directed to file, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, a 

memorandum explaining why the Court should not enter sanctions against her—sanctions 

which may include striking of her Answer and an entry of default against her. 

Dated this 22nd day of April, 2019.
#### IN THE INTEREST OF C.S.W., A.M. and R.L.M. JUVENILE OFFICER, Respondent, v. R.C., Appellant.

Nos. WD 49906 to WD 49908.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 29, 1995.

Bill W. Richerson, Blackwell Sanders Matheny Weary & Lombardi, Kansas City, for appellant.

Ellen D. Jervis, Kansas City, for respondent.

Kyla Grove, Kansas City, guardian ad li-tem.

Before BERREY, P.J., and ULRICH and ELLIS, JJ.

*591ORDER

PER CURIAM:

R.C., natural mother of C.S.W., A.M., and R.L.M., three minor children, appeals the order of the family court terminating her parental rights as provided in section 211.447, RSMol994. The parental rights of the fathers of the children were also terminated, but the fathers do not appeal. R.C. claims the evidence presented at the hearing on the petition to terminate her parental rights was unclear, unconvincing, and not cogent and, therefore, did not support termination of her rights. The judgment terminating R.C.’s parental rights pertaining to her children, C.S.W., A.M., and R.L.M., is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).