alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 155 (Monday, August 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18469]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13156-000; Project No. 13157-000]


FFP Ohio River 10, LLC; FFP Ohio River 11, LLC; Notice of 
Preliminary Permit Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting 
Comment, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

August 5, 2008.
    On March 25, 2008, FFP Ohio River 10, LLC and FFP Ohio River 11, 
LLC each filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal 
Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Ohio River 10 and 
Ohio River 11 Projects, to be located on the Ohio River in Floyd 
County, Indiana and Jefferson County, Kentucky.
    The proposed Ohio River 10 Project consists of: (1) 1,920 proposed 
20 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total installed 
capacity of 38.4 megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line, and (3) 
appurtenant facilities. The FFP Ohio River 10, LLC, project would have 
an average annual generation of 168.19 gigawatt-hours and be sold to a 
local utility.
    The proposed Ohio River 11 Project consists of: (1) 1,740 proposed 
20 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total installed 
capacity of 34.8 megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line, and (3) 
appurtenant facilities. The FFP Ohio River 10, LLC, project would have 
an average annual generation of 236.52 gigawatt-hours and be sold to a 
local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Dan Irvin, FFP Ohio River 10, LLC and FFP 
Ohio River 11, LLC, 69 Bridge Street, Manchester, MA 01944, phone (978) 
232-3536.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, (202) 502-6062.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-13156 
or P-13157) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18469 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
18386.

#### Brown *v.*Brown.

Argued October 13, 1953

Decided November 12, 1953.

*Virginia Webb, W. Stanford Willis,*for plaintiff in error.

*Ernest C. Britton, Paul Blanchard,*contra.

Hawkins, Justice.

This being a rule to enforce the payment of alleged past due and unpaid weekly instalments of permanent alimony awarded to the minor child of the plaintiff and the defendant by a decree dated November 6, 1944, which this court has held in *Brown*v. *Brown,*ante, was not affected by the subsequent voluntary cohabitation of the husband and wife, it was error for the trial judge to abate and dismiss this proceeding on motion, because of the pendency of a proceeding for divorce, temporary and permanent alimony for herself and child and for attorney’s fees, brought by the wife of the defendant after a separation which took place following the voluntary cohabitation, that proceeding and the present rule for contempt, while between the same parties, not being for the same cause of action. *Underwood*v. *Underwood,*139 *Ga.*241 (77 S. E. 46); *Mosely*v. *Mosely,*181 *Ga.*543 (182 S. E. 849); *Dempsey*v. *Dempsey,*203 *Ga.*225 (46 S. E. 2d 156). See also, in this connection, *Varble*v. *Hughes,*205 *Ga.*29 (52 S. E. 2d 303); *Wright*v. *Wright,*205 *Ga.*524 (54 S. E. 2d 596).

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Duckworth, C. J., not participating.*
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 476

To amend the Clean Air Act to repeal certain emissions standards for motor

vehicles which have not yet taken effect.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 11, 1995

Mr. DELAY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Clean Air Act to repeal certain emissions

standards for motor vehicles which have not yet taken effect.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLE EMIS4 SION STANDARDS.

5 Section 202 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401

6 and following) is amended as follows:

7 (1) Subsection (a)(1) is amended by adding at

8 the end thereof the following: ‘‘For all motor vehicles

9 in any class or category manufactured after the

10 model year 1995, the standard promulgated by the
2

•HR 476 IH

1 Administrator under this section shall be the stand2 ard applicable to such class or category of motor ve3 hicle in the model year 1995.’’.

4 (2) Subsection (a)(3)(B)(ii) is repealed.

5 (3) Subsection (h) is repealed.

6 (4) Subsection (i) is repealed.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

PAULA OWENS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-13583

DETROIT DIESEL CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

On August 10, 2009, Plaintiff Paula Owens filed a complaint in Wayne County

Circuit Court. Defendant Detroit Diesel Corporation was served on August 19, 2009,

and filed a notice of removal to this court on September 10, 2009. 

A scheduling conference was held on October 7, 2009. At the conference,

Plaintiff stated that she would file a motion to remand, which she did on October 9,

2009. Although the local rules provide that every motion must be accompanied by a

brief, see E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(c)(1)(A), Plaintiff requested additional time to file a brief in

support of the motion. The court indicated that Plaintiff could file a brief in support on or

before October 19, 2009, and that Defendant’s response would be due on or before

October 30, 2009. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff may file her brief in support of her motion to

remand after filing her motion, but in no event later than October 19, 2009, and

Defendant shall file its response on or before October 30, 2009.

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 15, 2009

2:09-cv-13583-RHC-MKM Doc # 10 Filed 10/15/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 49
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\09-13583.OWENS.Dates.npk.wpd

2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, October 15, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-13583-RHC-MKM Doc # 10 Filed 10/15/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 50
Exhibit 32.1

WABCO HOLDINGS INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of WABCO Holdings Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jacques Esculier, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that

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

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



/s/ Jacques EsculierJacques EsculierChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board


Dated: August 5, 2009
#### Hannah McGee, as Sole Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The Town of West Seneca, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied, with ten dollars costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         702,258
<SECURITIES>                                   1,541,423
<RECEIVABLES>                                  877,280
<ALLOWANCES>                                   20,000
<INVENTORY>                                    175,689
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,350,873
<PP&E>                                         3,535,222
<DEPRECIATION>                                 781,977
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,789,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,663,897
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    413
<COMMON>                                       3,054,459
<OTHER-SE>                                     (972,507)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,789,551
<SALES>                                        20,736,754
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               20,736,754
<CGS>                                          18,489,450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,162,628
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             340,614
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                744,062
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (368,553)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,112,615
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   891,725
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .26
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 158 (Thursday, August 14, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 47641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18940]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of 
Directors

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
    Time and Date: September 4, 2008, 12 noon to 3 p.m., Eastern 
Daylight Time.
    Place: This meeting will take place telephonically. Any interested 
person may call Mr. Avelino Gutierrez at (505) 827-4565 to receive the 
toll free number and pass code needed to participate in these meetings 
by telephone.
    Status: Open to the public.
    Matters to be Considered: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan 
Board of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and 
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to 
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified 
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.

    Dated: August 11, 2008.
William A. Quade,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement and Program Delivery.
[FR Doc. E8-18940 Filed 8-12-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PHILLIP HERNDON, #231404,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-12213

v. HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

CINDI CURTAIN,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

JUDGMENT

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District

 of Michigan on March 15, 2010

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Petitioner Phillip Herndon has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons set forth in an Opinion and Order issued this date,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for a writ of

habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies To:

Phillip Herndon, #231404

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility

3500 N. Elm Road

Jackson, Michigan 49201

Brian O. Neill, Esq.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
STATEMENTS  FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000915337
<NAME> IMATEL HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                        Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                          Dec-01-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1
<CASH>                               8,596
<SECURITIES>                         371,046
<RECEIVABLES>                        559,137
<ALLOWANCES>                         0
<INVENTORY>                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     938,779
<PP&E>                               29,414
<DEPRECIATION>                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       5,952,981
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                1,290,443
<BONDS>                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          1,500
<COMMON>                             12,252,597
<OTHER-SE>                          (7,593,559)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         5,952,981
<SALES>                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     0
<CGS>                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        732,090
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   11,324
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (4,164,442)
<INCOME-TAX>                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (3,986,592)
<DISCONTINUED>                       (177,850)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                         (4,164,442)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (1.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (1.11)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lightning Gaming, Inc. (the
“Registrant”) for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brian Haveson,
Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, and I, Robert Ciunci, Chief Financial
Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350  that:





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





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant at the dates and for the periods
  indicated.




A
signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to
the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.





Date: 
May 15, 2008


By: 
/s/ Brian Haveson





Brian
Haveson


Chief
Executive Officer








Date: 
May 15, 2008


By: 
/s/ Robert Ciunci





Robert
Ciunci


Chief
Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 47131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18637]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904 
Binational Panel Reviews: Notice of Completion of Panel Review

AGENCY: NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Completion of Panel Review of the International Trade 
Administration's Final Scope Ruling Regarding Entries Made Under HTSUS 
4409.10.05 in Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada (Secretariat 
File No. USA-CDA-2006-1904-05).

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Order of the Binational Panel dated June 25, 
2008, the determination described above was completed on June 25, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie Dees, United States Secretary, 
NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, 
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 25, 2008, the Binational Panel 
issued a memorandum opinion and order, which granted the International 
Trade Administration's Motion to Dismiss the Complaints, concerning 
Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada. The Secretariat was 
instructed to issue a Notice of Completion of Panel Review on the 31st 
day following the issuance of the Notice of Final Panel Action, if no 
request for an Extraordinary Challenge was filed. No such request was 
filed. Therefore, on the basis of the Panel Order and Rule 80 of the 
Article 1904 Panel Rules, the Panel Review was completed and the 
panelists were discharged from their duties effective June 25, 2008.

    Dated: August 7, 2008.
Valerie Dees,
United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. E8-18637 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P
#### The People of the State of New York v. Frank Duffy, Impleaded.

Motion denied upon condition that appellant have his appeal ready for argument at May term.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0316 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JESSE ALAN BAYLOR,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 6, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 29 2023

09/29/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0316
----

----

| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| March      10, 2008 | /s/      Richard Ivanovick         |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                | Richard      Ivanovick                                                     |
|                | Chief      Financial Officer                                               |

----
#### Benjamin Berger, Respondent, v. Henry Russell, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendant to withdraw demurrer and to answer on payment of costs. No opinion.
#### V. H. Montgomery v. State

No. 25621.

January 9, 1952.

Hon. E. A. Bills, Judge Presiding.

*E. O. Northcutt,*Amarillo, for appellant.

*577
      *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is robbery with firearms; the punishment, five years.

Three state witnesses, who were all of the persons present at the filling station on the night in question, testified that appellant, by the use of a shot gun, forced the owner of the station to take the money from his till and place it on the seat of appellant’s car waiting outside and in which appellant then drove away.

Appellant and his witnesses testified to an alibi, which was not accepted by the jury. o

We hold the evidence to be sufficient to support the verdict and, therefore, conclude that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct a verdict of not guilty.

Bill of exception No. *2*complains that the court failed to give a requested charge on the identity of the accused growing out of his defense of alibi. We find that in paragraph 7 of the court’s charge he amply charged the jury that they must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was the identical person who committed the offense before they could convict.

Bill of exception No. 3 complains of that portion of the court’s charge in which he defined “assault” and “assault and battery”.

The court, in that portion of his charge where he defined terms, gave the definition of the terms “assault” and “assault and battery” found in Article 1138, Penal Code. In addition thereto, the court instructed the jury, “The term ‘assault and battery’ is used herein in the same sense as ‘Battery’. That is, the term ‘assault and battery’ is *synonimous*with the term ‘battery’.” We do not quote this as a model charge, but we do not feel that it was in anywise injurious to appellant. We cannot agree that this placed a greater burden upon him.

It must be borne in mind that appellant was here charged with robbery by assault. The court properly defined “assault.” When the court came to apply the law to the facts, he charged the jury that they must find that appellant *made cm assault*
      *578upon the injured party and that, by means of said assault or violence or placing in fear, he took from the person of the injured party the money in question, which was a proper application of the law to the facts of the case. Therefore, the charge as a whole properly submitted the case to the jury.

Bill of exception No. 4 complains that, in replying to the following written communication from the jury: “If the verdict be guilty, can the sentence be lessened by the mercy of the court?” the trial court answered in writing: “The Court instructs you that in arriving at your verdict you will consider the evidence before you and the Court’s charge heretofore submitted to you, and no other matters are to be considered by you, and when you have reached a verdict the judgment of the court will be in accordance with such verdict.” We find no error therein.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.