alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50319-50320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19686]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13256-000]


Whitman River Dam, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application 
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene and 
Competing Applications

August 19, 2008.
    On July 18, 2008, Whitman River Dam, Inc. filed an application, 
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to 
study the feasibility of the Snows Mill Pond Project to be located on 
the Whitman River in Worcester County, Massachusetts. Existing 
facilities are owned by the Newark America Paper Company, Inc.
    The proposed project would utilize the existing Snows Mill Pond Dam 
and would consist of: (1) A new 42 inch diameter, 1,100 foot long 
penstock; (2) a powerhouse containing one turbine generator unit with a 
total installed capacity of 0.25 MW; (3) a 500 foot long, 0.6 kV 
transmission line and; (4) appurtenant facilities. The annual 
production would be 1.5 GWh which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Robert T. Francis, P.O. Box 145, 10 Tommy 
Francis Road, Westminster, MA 01473 (978) 874-1010.
    FERC Contact: Steven Sachs (202) 502-8666.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of

[[Page 50320]]

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 the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13256) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-19686 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit
      31.1





**CERTIFICATIONS**





I,
      H.
      Werner Huss, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Integrated Micrometallurgical
      Systems, 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 and I are responsible for establishing and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:





a)
      designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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.





5.
      The
      registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of
      registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
      function):





a)
      all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
      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; and





Date:
      November 20, 2007




/s/
              H. Werner HussH. Werner HussPresident
                and Chief Executive Officer




1
* 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 17, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20443 Summary Calendar

CHAVEZ D. PRICE, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; KEN LEVI; TONI TRIPLETT, Respondents-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CV-4221

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Chavez D. Price, Texas prisoner # 821134, appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in which he challenged the 1997 revocation of his probation, which had been imposed following his 1995 conviction for aggravated assault. The district court dismissed Price's petition as time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), 28No. 02-20443 -2- U.S.C. § 2244. The district court issued Price a certificate of appealability ("COA") on the timeliness of his petition. We review de novo a district court's denial of a federal habeas petition on procedural grounds

. See Lookingbill v. Cockrell , 293 F.3d 256, 260 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied , 123 S. Ct. 878 (2003). The district court held that Price's conviction became final, and the federal limitations period began, upon the expiration of the 30-day period under state law to file a timely petition for discretionary review ("PDR") with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Price argues that his conviction did not become final until much later when the Texas Court of Appeals issued its mandate. He argues further that after the state appellate court denied his direct appeal, it issued a notice to disregard the decision and permitted him to file a supplemental brief. Price's conviction became final at the conclusion of the 30- day period for filing a PDR, not when the state court issued its mandate. See Roberts v. Cockrell , 319 F.3d 690, 694-95 (5th Cir. 2003). Based on our review of the state record, we conclude thatthe district court did not err in finding Price's petition timebarred. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Price's motion to supplement the record is DENIED.
AFFIRMED. MOTION DENIED.
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
 /s/ J. Hicks LanierJ. Hicks LanierChairman and Chief Executive Officer
      (Principal Executive Officer)June 10, 2009/s/ K. Scott GrassmyerK. Scott GrassmyerSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Controller
(Principal Financial Officer)June 10, 2009
#### Brooks WELCH v. Newman H. DE BRITTON.*

No. 1252.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Dec. 4, 1933.

Jos. A. Loret and J. D. Womack, both of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Taylor Porter & Brooks, of Baton Rouge, for appellee.

*

Rehearing denied January 22, 1934.

LE BLANC, Judge.

This is a companion case to that of Mrs. Estelle Garrison Warner v. Newman DeBritton, 151 So. 239, in which an opinion and decree were this day handed down by the court. It was consolidated with that case and that of Alex Welch v. Newman H. DeBritton, 151 So. 241, for the purpose of trial in the lower court and for argument in this court.

For the reasons stated in the opinion in the case of Mrs. Estelle Garrison Warner v. Newman H. DeBritton, it is ordered that the judg-same is hereby affirmed at the appellant’s ment appealed from in this ease be and the costs.
#### Art Hobbs v. State.

No. 24676.

March 8, 1950.

*342
      *Allen, Locke & Kouri,*Wichita Falls, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Two complaints were filed against appellant, each of which contains two counts. In Cause No. 30,871, J. L. Coleman signed a complaint charging that appellant made an assault on him by shooting at him with a pistol. The second count in the same complaint alleges that appellant rudely displayed a deadly weapon, to-wit: a pistol in a public place.

In Cause No. 30,876 it is alleged that appellant made an assault on J. D. Chandler by shooting at him with a pistol. A second count charges him with rudely displaying a weapon in the same language.

When the cases were called for trial appellant asked that the two cases be consolidated and tried together. A jury was empaneled and, at the close of the evidence, the court instructed the jury, submitting to them both counts in each of the two complaints. The jury returned its verdict in which they assessed the maximum penalty of $25.00 fine on each of the two assault charges and $50.00 on each of the two charges under the second counts of the complaints. We think that each of the two complaints correctly charged an assault and that each is sustained by the evidence of the case.

The second count in each complaint charges that the pistol was rudely displayed in and near Lake Wichita Pavillion. This is not a public place per se and the state offered no evidence to show that the public resorted to such place. In fact, no evidence was offered whatsoever as to the nature of the place and it is not made clear as to any fact supporting such allegation. Consequently, the conviction on the two counts of rudely displaying a pistol at a public place is not sustained by the evidence.

*343Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as to the two counts assessing a fine of $25.00 each, for assault, and is reversed as to the two counts charging that he rudely displayed a pistol in a public place.
#### Alonzo B. Garrett v. Bianca E. Duclos.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs..
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
  CERTIFICATION
    OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
    PURSUANT TO
    18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
    SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Form 10-K Form 10-K
  Date: March 23, 2007

By:

/s/  Joshua
    G. JamesJoshua G. JamesPresident and Chief Executive
    Officer(Principal Executive Officer)   CERTIFICATION
    OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
    PURSUANT TO
    18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
    SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Form 10-K Form 10-K
  Date: March 23, 2007

By:

/s/  Michael
    S. HerringMichael S. HerringChief Financial Officer and
    Executive Vice President(Principal Financial and
    Accounting Officer)   A signed original of each of the written statements above
    required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
    has been provided to Omniture, Inc. and will be retained by
    Omniture, Inc. and furnished to the U.S. Securities and
    Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
  The forgoing certification is being furnished to the
    Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Annual
    Report on
    Form 10-K
    for the year ended December 31, 2006, and it shall not be
    considered filed as part of such report
#### Harold Eugene BOWERS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Robert LAMPERT, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 01-35914.

D.C. No. CV-99-00725-DCA.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 6, 2002.

Decided March 21, 2003.

*973Before REAVLEY,* KOZINSKI and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

1. The claims discussed in the petition to the Oregon Supreme Court, read in context of the state court proceedings and petitioner’s briefing therein, were fairly presented. *See, e.g., Kelly v. Small,*315 F.3d 1063, 1066-68 (9th Cir.2003). The following claims were thus properly exhausted: (1) ineffective assistance, based on: (a) “counsel’s failure to timely object to the imposition of a wrongful sentence”; (b) “the statement of petitioner’s attorney to petitioner that he would not represent petitioner unless he waived his right to a jury trial”; (c) “[counsel’s failure] to object to the Court’s failure in not ascertaining whether the jury waiver was voluntarily and intelligently made”; (d) “[counsel’s failure] to properly advise and counsel petitioner regarding the ramifications of his waiver of jury as opposed to proceeding to a jury trial”; (2) “the judge [unlawfully] stated that if a plea bargain was not entered into then petitioner would be severely punished”; (3) “[t]he Court unlawfully imposed an excessive and improper sentence when it departed from the sentencing guidelines presumptive sentence”; (4) “[t]he Court accepted the waiver of jury without properly determining whether the jury waiver was voluntarily and intelligently made”; and (5) “[t]he Court allowed and admitted the perjured testimony a[sic] witness against petitioner.”

On remand, the district court shall consider on the merits, if not previously considered, any of the above claims that petitioner raised in his federal habeas petition.

2. The state court’s findings that counsel adequately discussed the dangers and consequences of waiving a jury trial are amply supported by the record. Petitioner’s testimony, that his counsel guaranteed a win and wouldn’t represent him unless he waived his jury right, is inconsistent with this finding, but the court’s decision of which evidence to believe is entitled to great deference, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). On the state court’s finding, defendant suffered no ineffective assistance of counsel.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 31.3
                       CERTIFICATION

I, Edwin A. Guiles, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Southern
California Gas Company;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
information included in this Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer 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 we 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 Quarterly Report is being
prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this Quarterly Report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this Quarterly 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 that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting;

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

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal controls 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 controls over financial reporting.

November 6, 2003

/S/ EDWIN A. GUILES
Edwin A. Guiles
Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 608 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 608

 To amend the Public Health Service Act to revise the filing deadline 
   for certain claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation 
                                Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 20, 1995

  Mr. Meehan (for himself and Mr. Hilliard) introduced the following 
         bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Public Health Service Act to revise the filing deadline 
   for certain claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation 
                                Program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Vaccine Injury Compensation Reform 
Act''.

SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

    The purpose of this Act is to prevent the unfair denial of 
compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to 
certain individuals who are diagnosed as having vaccine-related 
injuries more than 36 months after the first symptom, manifestation of 
onset, or significant aggravation of such injuries.

SEC. 3. REVISION OF FILING DEADLINE FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS UNDER NATIONAL 
              VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION PROGRAM.

    Section 2116(a)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
300aa-16(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``no petition'' and all that 
follows and inserting the following: ``no petition may be filed for 
compensation under the Program for such injury after the expiration of 
36 months after the date on which such injury is diagnosed, except 
that, if such injury is first diagnosed before the date of the 
enactment of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Reform Act, no petition 
may be filed for compensation under the Program for such injury after 
the expiration of 36 months after the latest of--
                    ``(A) the date on which such injury is diagnosed;
                    ``(B) the date of the occurrence of the first 
                symptom or manifestation of onset or of the significant 
                aggravation of such injury; and
                    ``(C) the date of the enactment of the Vaccine 
                Injury Compensation Reform Act, if such injury is first 
                diagnosed after the expiration of 36 months after the 
                date referred to in subparagraph (B); and''.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, John D. Erickson, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Otter Tail
Corporation; 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 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 and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the 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: May 7, 2004 /s/ John D. Erickson
John D. Erickson
President and Chief Executive Officer