alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20859]



[[Page 52351]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL05-19-006, Docket No. ER05-168-005 (consolidated); Docket 
No. ER06-274-010 (not consolidated)]


Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, et al. v. Southwestern Public 
Service Company, Southwestern Public Service Company, Southwestern 
Public Service Company; Notice of Filing

September 3, 2008.
    On August 29, 2008, Southwestern Public Service Company, on behalf 
of itself, Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc., Lyntegar Electric 
Cooperative, Inc., Occidental Permian Ltd. and Occidental Power 
Marketing, L.P., filed an Amendment No. 2 to its Offer of Settlement 
and Settlement Agreement filed on December 3, 2007 and approved by the 
Commission on April 21, 2008 in this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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 notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#571112051418393b3e393204222727382523173132253479303821"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d0969582939fbebcb9beb583a5a0a0bfa2a490b6b5a2b3feb7bfa6">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on September 10, 2008.
    Reply Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on September 17, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20859 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Succession of WATSON v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.*

No. 14837.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 1, 1934.

For former opinion; see 156 So. 29.

Spencer, G-idiere, Phelps & Dunbar and Louis B. Claverie, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

James N. Brittingham, Jr., of New Orleans, for appellee.

*

writ of certiorari granted Nov. 26, 1934.

PER CURIAM.

In application for rehearing counsel complain that this case is on appeal from the civil district court and, not from the First city court. A careful reading of our opinion discloses that we referred to the ease as having been appealed from the civil district court, so, manifestly, counsel are in error in the statement contained in their brief.

Complaint is also made that we assessed the costs of appeal against the appellee. Since the appellee is public administrator and, as counsel state, “is not liable under the law for payment of court costs,” counsel are correct. Act No. 14 of 1926 provides that:

> “The Public Administrator for the Parish of Orleans shall not be required to advance or pay any costs of court or sheriff’s costs in any proceeding instituted by or against him in his official capacity or to give appeal *591or other bond in any judicial proceeding instituted by or against him in-his official capacity.”

Accordingly, our decree is amended so as to read as follows:

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from he, and it is, amended by reducing the amount thereof to the sum of $122, with interest at 6 per cent, per annum from judicial demand. All costs except those of appeal to be paid by appellant.

The rehearing requested by plaintiff-appel-lee is refused.

Rehearing refused.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 713 

To promote accountability and transparency in future executive orders. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2021 

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

on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To promote accountability and transparency in future 

executive orders. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NOTIFICATION RESPECTING CERTAIN EXECU4 TIVE ORDERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days before 

6 issuing a qualifying executive order, the President shall 

7 transmit to the Congress, and make publicly available, a 

8 notification with respect to such executive order. Such no9 tification shall contain— 

10 (1) the text of the executive order; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 713 IH

1 (2) the Federal law or laws affected by the ex2 ecutive order that is the subject of the notification; 

3 (3) how the President is working within the pa4 rameters specified in Federal law and the Constitu5 tion; 

6 (4) the means by which the executive order will 

7 be accomplished, including through any related Fed8 eral agencies or departments; and 

9 (5) a comprehensive list of organizations, busi10 nesses, and other parties or entities the President, 

11 or the President’s designee, engaged with prior to 

12 the issuance of such executive order. 

13 (b) REPORTS.—Not later than 6 months after the 

14 date of the enactment of this Act, and every 12 months 

15 thereafter, the President shall submit to the Congress a 

16 report on the outcome of each qualifying executive order 

17 issued during the period covered by the report. 

18 (c) QUALIFYING EXECUTIVE ORDER.—The term 

19 ‘‘qualifying executive order’’ means any executive order 

20 (including an executive order that revokes or nullifies a 

21 previous executive order) issued on or after January 20, 

22 2021, relating to agriculture, food, and the livelihood of 

23 farmers, ranchers, and producers in the United States. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of National Presto Industries, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended July 5, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



|                      |                        
|--------------------- | -----------------------
|Date: August 13, 2009 | /S/ R. LIEBLE          
|                      | R. Lieble,             
|                      | Chief Financial Officer
#### Mannie Sukhlal, Respondent, v American Home Prod*161ucts Corp. et al., Appellants.

Judgment Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jack Turret, J.), entered on or about March 13, 1989, after a jury trial, finding defendants American Home Products Corp. and Pinkerton’s Inc. negligent in this personal injury action and jointly liable to plaintiff in the amount of $100,000 plus costs and disbursements, said liability allocated 60%/40%, respectively, between the defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet spot in the lobby of the building where he worked at 685 Third Avenue in Manhattan. He had descended to the ground floor from his 28th-floor office to make a package delivery to the mail room, and suffered the accident on his return. The hazardous spill was directly in front of the lobby security desk. The Pinkerton’s guards made two calls to defendant American Home Products Corp.’s (the landlord) maintenance supervisor to report the condition, but no one arrived to clean it up during the approximately 15 to 20 minutes between discovery and accident. Pinkerton’s contractual obligation was primarily to provide security for the building, although its duties did include control of pedestrian movement in the entrance areas, and general responsibility for prevention of accidents. After notifying the landlord’s maintenance supervisor of the condition, Pinkerton’s posted a guard on either side of the spill. Unfortunately, plaintiff emerged from a hallway behind the guards, and thus was never alerted to avoid the slippery spot. Having undertaken a measure of security (vis-á-vis pedestrian traffic flow and accident prevention) in some greater detail than called for under the general terms of the contract, Pinkerton’s must suffer the consequence of its misfeasance in carrying out that task.

We reject the landlord’s argument for indemnification against Pinkerton’s as against public policy (General Obligations Law § 5-322.1) in view of the landlord’s own negligence. *(See, Brown v Two Exch. Plaza Partners,*76 NY2d 172.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.3


                                 PSEG POWER LLC
               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 For the Quarters            For the Years Ended
                                                  Ended March 31,                December 31,
                                                 --------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2004    2003     2003    2002    2001     2000   1999
                                                 --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 (Millions, except ratios)
<S>                                               <C>     <C>       <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>
Earnings as Defined in Regulation S-K (A):

Pre-tax Income from Continuing Operations         $ 185   $ 300     $ 800   $ 781   $ 644   $ 521   $ 807

Fixed Charges                                        72      58       225     219     213     209     126

Capitalized Interest                                (31)    (28)     (109)    (95)    (63)    (11)     (2)

Preferred Stock Dividend Requirements                --      --        --      --      --      --     (12)
                                                 --------------------------------------------------------
Total Earnings                                    $ 226   $ 330     $ 916   $ 905   $ 794   $ 719   $ 919
                                                 ========================================================

Fixed Charges as Defined in Regulation S-K (B)

Interest Expense                                  $  72   $  57     $ 223   $ 217   $ 206   $ 209   $ 114

Interest Factor in Rentals                           --       1         2       2       7      --      --

Preferred Securities Dividends Requirements of
   Subsidiaries                                      --      --        --      --      --      --      12
                                                 --------------------------------------------------------
Total Fixed Charges                               $  72   $  58     $ 225   $ 219   $ 213   $ 209   $ 126
                                                 ========================================================

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                 3.14    5.69      4.07    4.13    3.73    3.44    7.29
                                                 ========================================================
</TABLE>

(A)  The term "earnings" shall be defined as pretax income from continuing
     operations. Add to pretax income the amount of fixed charges adjusted to
     exclude the amount of any interest capitalized during the period.

(B)  Fixed Charges represent (a) interest, whether expensed or capitalized, (b)
     amortization of debt discount, premium and expense and (c) an estimate of
     interest implicit in rentals.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 2, 2017

No. 04-17-00010-CV

ATLAS TOWING AND STORAGE,

Appellant

v.

Cheryl VOMERO,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CV04077

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On February 27, 2017, this court issued an order granting the parties’ Joint Advisory 

stating they have agreed to mediate this matter with Mr. Robert Trudeau and abating this appeal

until April 10, 2017. 

Also on February 27, 2017, before receiving a copy of our order, appellant filed an 

unopposed motion requesting an extension of time in which to file its brief. Based on our 

February 27, 2017 order, we deny the motion as moot.

Pursuant to our February 27, 2017 order, (1) the parties are directed to file either the 

appropriate motion to dismiss this appeal or a motion to reinstate appellate deadlines no later 

than April 10, 2017; (2) if the appeal is reinstated, appellant’s brief is due thirty days from the 

date of reinstatement; and (3) all other appellate deadlines are held in abeyance pending further 

order of this court.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of March, 2017.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 10.1 



 

 


Performance Criteria
for 2005 






under the
Company’s Annual Incentive Plan 

 

 



        For
2005, the corporate performance criteria under the Company’s Annual Incentive Plan,
which criteria were approved by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of
Directors, relate to increases in revenue and improvements in operating profit as a
percentage of sales.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Federal Trade Commission

v. Civil No. 04-cv-377-JD

SmartBot.Net, Inc., et al.

ORDER

Re: Document No. 66, Assented to Motion to Extend Time to

Obtain Replacement Local Counsel

Ruling: Granted, provided that counsel

shall notify SmartBot and Sanford in writing

that they have a duty to maintain communication with counsel in order to prosecute their

defense and to comply with court orders and

that failure to do so will result in the entry

of a default against them.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

U.S. District Judge

Date: June 30, 2005

cc: Ralph A. Jacobs, Esquire

W. Scott O’Connell, Esquire

Charulata B. Pagar, Esquire

Laura M. Sullivan, Esquire

Martha Van Oot, Esquire

Case 1:04-cv-00377-JD Document 67 Filed 06/30/05 Page 1 of 1
#### CASSO v. ASCENSION REALTY CO. et al.

No. 2026.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Dec. 20, 1939.

Writ of Error Granted Feb. 5, 1940.

For former opinion, see 190 So, 198.

Walter Lemann, of Donaldsonville, for appellant.

Blum & LeBlanc, of Donaldsonville, for appellees.

WM. CARRUTH JONES, Judge ad hoc.

A reconsideration of this case discloses that in our original opinion, 190 So. 198, we erred in one particular.

Our error consisted in failing to observe that the Sulakowski map referred to in the two acts of sale and compromise, and in the act from Barrow to Pittman, as being of record in the office of the Recorder of Ascension Parish, is not only not in the transcript, but, according to the testimony of the Clerk and Recorder, was not found in his office.

Further, the map actually offered in evidence (D — 1), is not identified with either act of sale or compromise, and though it apparently was attached to one of these acts, it can not be assumed that it is the map referred to by the parties as the Sula-kowski map.

And, under the circumstances, the map offered in evidence should not have been considered by us as interpretative of the language employed by the parties in describing the property involved in the acts of compromise.

We are, however, of the opinion the conclusion is inescapable that the phrase, “all my property in Port Barrow, said land consisting principally of lots of ground as per plan of said town of Port Barrow made by V. Sulakowski, etc.”, used in the compromise agreements, entered into between Buford and Camp in the year 1890, included the lots of ground herein involved.

A review of this case has not changed our conclusion in any way, and for these reasons, our previous opinion and decree herein is reinstated and now made the final opinion and the decree of this Court.

OTT, J., dissenting.

LE BLANC, J., not participating.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1104 

In Re: TERENCE KEITH JOHNSON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(3:03-cv-00937; 3:06-cv-00748; 3:06-cv-00804; 3:06-cv-00805; 3:06-

cv-00811; 3:06-cv-00816; 3:06-cv-00826; 3:06-cv-00827; 3:06-cv00846; 3:06-cv-00847; 3:06-cv-00866; 3:06-cv-00867; 3:07-cv-00001;

3:07-cv-00003; 3:07-cv-00004)

Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 5, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terence Keith Johnson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Terence Keith Johnson petitions for a writ of mandamus

seeking an order directing the district court to vacate a prefiling

review order. We conclude that Johnson is not entitled to

mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has

a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a

drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary

circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,

402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987).

Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United

Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). 

The relief sought by Johnson is not available by way of

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification

 

I, Rajesh Kalathur, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of John Deere Owner Trust 2018-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.             I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.             All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association (as indenture trustee).

 

 

 
| Date: January 24,   2020 | By:    | */s/   Rajesh Kalathur*                       |
|-------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                          |   | Rajesh Kalathur                               |
|                          |   | President of John Deere   Capital Corporation |
|                          |   | (as Servicer)                                 |

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-21-0000377

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

ROBERT M. GEORGE, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

JOLYN A. GEORGE, Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(FC-D NO. 19-1-430)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEAL

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Fujise and Leonard, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Plaintiff-Appellant Robert M.

George, Sr.'s July 16, 2021 Motion to Withdraw Appeal, the papers

in support, and the record,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted and the

appeal is dismissed, under Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure

Rule 42(a).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions

are dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 21, 2021.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Chief Judge

/s/ Alexa D.M. Fujise

Associate Judge

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Associate Judge

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-21-0000377

21-JUL-2021

10:54 AM

Dkt. 18 ORD