alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 177 (Thursday, September 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21058]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Certification Notice--217]


 Office Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability; Notice of 
Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant 
and Industrial Fuel Use Act

AGENCY: Office Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of filing.

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

SUMMARY: On May 19, 2008, CPV Maryland, LLC, as owner and operator of a 
new base load electric powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-
certification to the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to section 
201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as 
amended, and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61. Section 201(d) of 
FUA requires DOE to publish a notice of receipt of self-certifications 
in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are 
available for public inspection, upon request, in the Office of 
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code OE-20, Room 8G-
024, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Russell at (202) 586-9624.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 
et seq.), provides that no new base load electric powerplant may be 
constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another 
alternate fuel as a primary energy source.
    Pursuant to FUA section 201(d), in order to meet the requirement of 
coal capability, the owner or operator of such a facility proposing to 
use natural gas or petroleum as its primary energy source shall certify 
to the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) prior to construction, or prior 
to operation as a base load electric powerplant, that such powerplant 
has the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel. Such 
certification establishes compliance with FUA section 201(a) as of the 
date it is filed with the Secretary. The Secretary is required to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register reciting that the 
certification has been filed.
    The following owner of a proposed new base load electric powerplant 
has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to 
FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 
501.60, 61:
    Owner: CPV Maryland, LLC.
    Capacity: 640 megawatts (MW).
    Plant Location: Waldorf, Maryland.
    In-Service Date: Between Summer 2011 and Summer 2012.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 3, 2008.
Anthony J. Como,
Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of Electricity Delivery and 
Energy Reliability.
[FR Doc. E8-21058 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, being the Chief Financial Officer of Archstone-Smith Operating Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust (the "Issuer"), hereby
certifies, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the "Periodic Report") of the Issuer for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 which accompanies this certification, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m(a)) and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

Date:
August 9, 2007

| | /s/CHARLES E. MUELLER, JR.Charles E. Mueller, Jr., Chief Financial Officer
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 04-cr-190-2-PB

Amanda Chase

O R D E R

On May 16, 2008, defendant appeared for a “probable cause”

hearing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 on five (two of which are

new) alleged violations of conditions of supervision. The

violations were not contested for purposes of probable cause. I

therefore find probable cause to hold her for a revocation

hearing. 

Defendant sought bail conditions under Rule 32.1(a)(6). 

Under Rule 32.1(a)(6) defendant bears the burden of establishing

by clear and convincing evidence that she will not flee and that

she poses no danger to any other person or to the community. Ms.

Chase is a danger. She has shown a willingness to drink and

drive and more recently, to drink with her husband and ride with

him after his license was revoked. She has an alcohol problem. 

She is a danger to the community. There are no conditions which

are likely to assure her presence and the safety of the

community.

Case 1:04-cr-00190-PB Document 67 Filed 05/16/08 Page 1 of 2
2

I recommend that she be admitted to the Strafford County

House of Correction treatment program. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

pending trial. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his designated representative for confinement in a

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On

order of a court of the United States or on request of an

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 16, 2008

cc: Daniel D. Lustenberger, Esq.

 Mark E. Howard, Esq.

 Mark S. Zuckerman, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:04-cr-00190-PB Document 67 Filed 05/16/08 Page 2 of 2
PAGE <1>

                                  Exhibit 99.1

                               Pyramid Oil Company

                   Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
                        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                        As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                         Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
President of Pyramid Oil Company (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my
knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) 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.



     Dated: August 13, 2004

                                               JOHN H. ALEXANDER
                                               -----------------
                                               John H. Alexander
                                                   President


























PAGE <1>

                                   Exhibit 99.2

                                Pyramid Oil Company

                   Certification of the Chief Financial Officer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                       As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                        Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
Chief Financial Officer of Company Pyramid Oil (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.




     Date: August 13, 2004

                                                LEE G. CHRISTIANSON
                                                -------------------
                                                Lee G. Christianson
                                              Chief Financial Officer
#### MORRIS PLAN BANK v. MALONEY et al.

No. 16172.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Jan. 11, 1937.

Harold Moore, of New Orleans, for appellant.

F. A. Kullman, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

McCALEB, Judge.

This is a suit on the promissory note of R. J. Maloney and Guy L. Deano, comakers, against whom judgment is sought in solido for the sum of $275 plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.

There was judgment in the court below for the plaintiff, Morris Plan Bank, in liquidation, and against the defendants, as prayed for, and one of the defendants, Guy L. Deano, has taken a suspensive appeal from that judgment.

Deano has not favored us with a brief setting forth any alleged error committed by the district judge and when the case was called for oral argument, his counsel submitted the matter upon the record.

An examination of the transcript discloses that Deano filed an exception t.o the capacity of the plaintiff represented by Jasper S. Brock, State Bank Commissioner, acting through Lawrence J. Dumestre, his special agent, to bring the suit and also to the capacity of the Morris Plan Bank, in liquidation, to stand in judgment. This exception was overruled by the district judge and, we believe, correctly so. The Morris Plan Bank was placed in liquidation under the authority vested in the State Bank Commissioner by Act No. 300 of 1910 and that statute also gives to the State Bank Commissioner the authority to appoint special agents to assist him in liquidating the affairs of the bank (which includes the collection of its assets).

After the foregoing exception was overruled, Deano filed his answer, admitting the execution of the note, but setting forth that it was given without consideration. Neither he nor his attorney was present on the date the case was fixed for trial, and judgment was accordingly entered, after due proof of the claim being made by the plaintiff.

We fail to see any merit in Deano’s appeal and are convinced that it was prosecuted for purposes of delay and is manifestly frivolous.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.
Case 1:04-cv-00467-JM Document 8 Filed 02/23/05 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-1135 (Final)] 

# AGENCY:

United States International Trade Commission. 

# ACTION:

Revised schedule for the subject investigation.

#                         DATES:                         *Effective Date:*

September 4, 2008. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Nathanael Comly (202-205-3174), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (                        *http://www.usitc.gov*). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at                         *http://edis.usitc.gov*.                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On May 28, 2008, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the subject investigation (73 FR 33115, June 11, 2008). The Commission is revising its schedule. 

The Commission's new schedule for the investigation is as follows: the prehearing staff report will be placed in the nonpublic record on September 26, 2008; the deadline for filing prehearing briefs is October 6, 2008. 

For further information concerning this investigation see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). 

Authority:This investigation is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules. 

By order of the Commission.

Issued: September 5, 2008. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. E8-21097 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William J. Carey

v. Civil No. 05-cv-274-PB

Hillsborough County

Department of Corrections

O R D E R

Pro se plaintiff William J. Carey has filed a complaint,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging various violations under

the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution and New Hampshire state law (document nos. 1, 6, 8

and 10). Named as defendants are the Hillsborough County

Department of Corrections (“HCDOC”) and three of its officers and

employees: Superintendent James O’Mara, Dr. Ward and Corrections

Officer Kenyan. The complaint is before me for preliminary

review to determine whether, among other things, it states a

claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A;

U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire Local Rule

(“LR”) 4.3(d)(2).

For the reasons stated in the report and recommendation

issued simultaneously herewith, I find that Carey has stated an

Case 1:05-cv-00274-PB Document 12 Filed 11/22/05 Page 1 of 3
2

Eighth Amendment denial of adequate dental care claim, and a

related state law negligence claim, against the unnamed HCDOC

dentist. I further find that he has stated Eighth Amendment

failure to protect claims against the HCDOC and O‘Mara. I

recommend dismissal of all remaining claims.

Accordingly, I order that the complaint be served on the

defendants. As plaintiff has filed the necessary summons forms

with regard to defendants HCDOC and O’Mara, I order that the

complaint be served on those defendants. The Clerk’s office is

directed to issue the necessary summons forms and forward to the

United States Marshal for the District of New Hampshire (the

“U.S. Marshal’s office”) the summonses, copies of the complaint

(document nos. 1, 6, 8 & 10), the report and recommendation and

this order. Upon receipt of the necessary documentation, the

U.S. Marshal’s office shall effect service upon defendants. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). 

Defendants are instructed to answer or otherwise plead

within twenty days of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). 

Plaintiff is instructed that all future pleadings, written

motions, notices, or similar papers shall be served directly on

the defendants by delivering or mailing the materials to them or

Case 1:05-cv-00274-PB Document 12 Filed 11/22/05 Page 2 of 3
3

their attorney(s), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). 

SO ORDERED.

________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: November 22, 2005

cc: William J. Carey, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00274-PB Document 12 Filed 11/22/05 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-55-01-SM

Amalia Bracero

O R D E R

Defendant Bracero’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document no. 15). Trial has been rescheduled for the March 

2006 trial period. Defendant Bracero shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than December 23, 2005. On the filing of such waiver, her

continuance shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: February 22, 2006 at 3:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: March 7, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:05-cr-00055-SM Document 16 Filed 12/15/05 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Steven J. McAuliffe

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

December 15, 2005

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Helen Fitzgibbon, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00055-SM Document 16 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 2
#### Union Joint Stock Land Bank of Detroit, Michigan, *v.*Eaton et al.

(No. 24303

Decided March 7, 1934.)

*Messrs. Masters, Crane $ Willett*and *Mr. A. R. Johnson,*for plaintiff in error.

*588*Messrs. Corn, Jenkins & Collier, Mr. L. B. Andrews, Mr. A. B. Johnson, Mr. Thomas E. Crcmce,*and *Messrs. Irish & Biley,*for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this Court, that the judgment of the said Court of Appeals be, and the same is hereby, affirmed upon authority of *Forest City Investment Co.*v. *Haas,*110 Ohio St., 188.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Matthias and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Weygandt, C. J., and Bevis, J., dissent.
IA

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 88

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to protect

the rights of crime victims.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 23, 2002

Mr. ROYCE introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to protect the rights of crime victims.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States, and which shall take effect on the 180th day after

9 ratification of this article:
2

•HJ 88 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. The rights of victims of violent crime,

3 being capable of protection without denying the constitu4 tional rights of those accused of victimizing them, are

5 hereby established and shall not be denied by any State

6 or the United States and may be restricted only as pro7 vided in this article.

8 ‘‘SECTION 2. A victim of violent crime shall have the

9 right to reasonable and timely notice of any public pro10 ceeding involving the crime and of any release or escape

11 of the accused; the rights not to be excluded from such

12 public proceeding and reasonably to be heard at public re13 lease, plea, sentencing, reprieve, and pardon proceedings;

14 and the right to adjudicative decisions that duly consider

15 the victim’s safety, interest in avoiding unreasonable

16 delay, and just and timely claims to restitution from the

17 offender. These rights shall not be restricted except when

18 and to the degree dictated by a substantial interest in pub19 lic safety or the administration of criminal justice, or by

20 compelling necessity.

21 ‘‘SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be con22 strued to provide grounds for a new trial or to authorize

23 any claim for damages. Only the victim or the victim’s

24 lawful representative may assert the rights established by
3

•HJ 88 IH

1 this article, and no person accused of the crime may obtain

2 any form of relief hereunder.

3 ‘‘SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to enforce

4 by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.

5 Nothing in this article shall affect the President’s author6 ity to grant reprieves or pardons.

7 ‘‘SECTION 5. This article shall be inoperative unless

8 it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Con9 stitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

10 States within seven years from the date of its submission

11 to the States by the Congress.’’.

Æ
PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RAILROAD
                              FORM 10-Q
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
CHANGES IN FINANCIAL POSITION

 (Dollars in Thousands)

                                                     Unaudited
                                                  Three months ended
                                                    March 31   

                                                  1998           1997
 <S>                                              <C>            <C>
 Source of Cash:
     Net income                                   $209           $212

     Decrease in accounts payable                 (10)           (10)

        Cash provided from operations             $199           $202


 Use of Cash:

     Dividends paid                                196            196

     Increase (decrease) in cash                   $ 3            $ 6
</TABLE>



Notes:

     (1)  The foregoing interim financial statements are unaudited but, 
          in the opinion of management, reflect all adjustments
          necessary for a fair presentation of the results of operations
          for the interim periods.

     (2)  Registrant has elected to be treated for tax purposes as a
          real estate investment trust. As such, the Trust is exempt
          from paying federal corporate income tax on any income that is
          distributed to shareholders. It has been Registrant's policy
          to distribute annually all of its ordinary taxable income.
          Consequently, no provision has been made for federal income
          tax.