alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21584]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12646-001--Oklahoma]


City of Broken Bow, OK; Notice of Availability of Environmental 
Assessment

September 10, 2008.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) 
regulations, 18 CFR 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of 
Energy Projects has reviewed the City of Broken Bow, Oklahoma's 
application for license for the proposed Pine Creek Lake Dam Hydropower 
Project (or Project), located on Pine Creek dam in McCurtain County, 
Oklahoma, and has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the 
Project. The proposed Project would occupy a total of 10.12 acres of 
federal lands administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    The EA contains Commission staff's analysis of the potential future 
environmental effects of the Project. Staff has concluded that 
licensing the Project, with appropriate environmental protective 
measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would 
significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the 
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at 
http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket 
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to 
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b3d3e293834151712151e280e0b0b14090f3b1d1e0918551c140d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="195f5c4b5a56777570777c4a6c6969766b6d597f7c6b7a377e766f">[email protected]</span></a> or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 
(202) 502-8659. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings 
and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For 
assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, contact Allyson Conner by telephone at 
(202) 502-6082 or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7f1e1313060c1011511c1011111a0d3f191a0d1c51181009"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e9888585909a8687c78a8687878c9ba98f8c9b8ac78e869f">[email protected]</span></a>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21584 Filed 9-15-08; 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>
K.L.L., A CHILD , Appellant,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 16

- 5840

_____________________________/ Opinion filed August 28, 2017. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County

. Adrian G. Soud , Judge

. Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General , Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. The juvenile appellant, K.L.L., appeals a final disposition order adjudicating her delinquent , following a guilty plea, and committing her to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice for placement in a non

- secure residential program
.2 In so doing, the trial co urt deviated from the Department’s recommendation of probation. We disagree with the appellant’s characterization of the trial court’s findings,
which were well

- reasoned and supported by competent, substantial evidence. However, we agree with the appell ant that the trial court erred in committing her without first requesting a commitment level recommendation from the Department. See B.K.A. v. State , 122 So. 3d 928, 930 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ; A.L.M.
v. State , 176 So. 3d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)

. Accordingly, w e AFFIRM the portion of the disposition order adjudicating the appellant delinquent, but we REVERSE the non

- secure residential commitment
and REMAND to the trial court for fur ther proceedings consistent with the opinions
in B.K.A. and A.L.M

. , as well as section 985.433(7), Florida Statutes. ROBERTS, MAKAR and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 32.b



CERTIFICATION



I, Larry Bruce, Principal Financial Officer of Blink Logic Inc. (the Company), in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) on the date hereof, that:



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



The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Dated: August 18, 2009 |  | /s/Larry Bruce
Larry Bruce
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary & Treasurer
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           2,518
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,004
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,427
<INVENTORY>                                      9,972
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,551
<PP&E>                                         256,859
<DEPRECIATION>                                  93,452
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 235,602
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,287
<BONDS>                                         71,200
<COMMON>                                        39,072
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      8,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,249
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   235,602
<SALES>                                         57,270
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                57,270
<CGS>                                           31,144
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,905
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,857
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,364
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,310
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,054
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,054
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.92
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

          The following table summarizes Archstone's development communities under construction as of June 30, 2001(dollar amounts in thousands):

```
**Actual or
                                                               Total                    Expected Date     Expected
                                                             Expected                  for First Units Stabilization
                                      Number of  Archstone   Investment    Start Date   (Quarter/Year)      Date           %
                                        Units  Investment     (1)     (Quarter/Year)     (2)        (Quarter/Year)Leased (3)****East Region:***Boston, Massachusetts:*
     Archstone Vinnin Square.........       148$    8,578$      32,006     Q1/01          Q1/02            Q4/02           N/A
   *Richmond, Virginia:*
     Archstone Swift Creek II........       144     9,913       11,021     Q2/00          Q1/01            Q3/01        95.83%
   *Stamford, Connecticut:*
     Archstone Stamford..............       160    16,885       30,773     Q3/00          Q4/01            Q2/02           N/A
   *Washington, D.C.:*
     Archstone Columbia Town Center..       531     30,885        65,141     Q2/00          Q4/01            Q2/03           N/A
     Archstone Governor's Green II...       140     3,745       17,056     Q2/01          Q3/02            Q1/03           N/A
      Total Washington, D.C..........       671    34,630       82,197**Total East Region.............**    1,123$   70,006$     155,997**West Region:***Los Angeles County, California:*
     Archstone Playa Del Rey.........       305$   24,555$      76,335     Q2/01          Q4/02            Q1/04           N/A
   *Orange County, California:*
     Archstone Mission Viejo.........       216    18,988       34,574     Q3/00          Q4/01            Q3/02           N/A
   *Phoenix, Arizona:*
     Archstone Deer Valley Village II       336    20,829       23,680     Q1/00          Q4/00            Q4/01        77.08%
   *San Diego, California:*
     Archstone Mission Valley........       736    87,890      106,328     Q4/99          Q3/00            Q2/02        71.74%
   *San Francisco (Bay Area),California:*
     Archstone Willow Glen...........       412    63,651       69,581     Q3/99          Q4/00            Q1/02        50.24%
  *Ventura County, California:*
     Archstone Moorpark..............       312    25,311       40,283     Q3/00          Q1/02            Q4/02           N/A
       **Total West Region.............**    2,317$  241,224$     350,781**Total Communities
          Under Construction.........**     3,440 $  311,230 $     506,778
                                      ========= ========== =============
```
(173 La. 735)

#### Dr. Francis E. BRANT v. Charles A. TERRILL.

No. 28673.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 30, 1931.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1932.

Dhu Thompson, of Monroe, for appellant.

C. C. Elrod, of Siloam Springs, Ark., and Cahn *&*Cahn, of New Orleans, for appellee.

BRUNOT, J.

This is a suit for only $1,750, with eight per cent, per annum interest thereon from March 6, 1922, to December 21, 1926, and ten per cent, on the sum of said principal and interest as attorney’s fees. -The suit is upon four promissory notes for $500 each, representing the credit portion of the purchase price of the land described in the petition. The notes are identified with an authentic act of record containing all of the usual clauses in a sale partly for cash and partly on credit. The notes were due respectively on March 6,1923, 1924, 1925, and 1926. On June 14, 1923, the maker of the notes paid $250 on the principal of the note due March 6, 1923, and the interest due on this, note to June 14, 1923. These payments are properly credited on this note, and the prayer of plaintiff’s petition, which was filed December 21, 1926, is for judgment for $2,000, less these credits, with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent, per an-num, and for ten per cent, of said sum and interest as attorney’s fees. The judgment appealed from was as prayed for in the petition. It is clear that on plaintiff’s demand, the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit has jurisdiction of this appeal. There is a recon-ventional demand, in the alternative, and for damages, in the answer of the defendant, which we do not find it necessary to consider, for the reason that in cases of this kind the jurisdiction of this court is fixed by the actual amount, exclusive of interest, which is sued for. Section 10, article 7 of the Constitution of 1921, contains the following- provision with reference to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, viz.:

“It shall have appellate jurisdiction in civil suits where the amount in’dispute, or the fund to be distributed, irrespective of the amount therein claimed, shall exceed two thousand dollars exclusiye of interest,” etc.

For the reasons stated, it is ordered that this case be transferred to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, provided that, if the record be not filed in that court within thirty days from the date on which this decree becomes final, the appeal shall stand dismissed, at appellant’s cost.
**Exhibit
      32.1**


**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 Puget
      Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy, Inc .
      (the
      "Companies") on Form 10-Q for
      the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form
      10-Q"), I, Stephen
      P. Reynolds, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
      Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(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
      Companies.











Date:
                August 3, 2006/s/Stephen
                P. ReynoldsStephen
                P. ReynoldsChairman,
                President and
              Chief
                Executive Officer
# Patriot Day, 2008

September 11, 2001, was etched into America's memory when 19 terrorists attacked us with barbarity unequaled in our history.  On Patriot Day, we cherish the memory of the thousands of innocent victims lost, extend our thoughts and prayers to their families, and honor the heroic men and women who risked and sacrificed their lives so others might survive.

Since 9/11, we have recognized the threat posed by terrorists to the safety of the American people and worked to protect our homeland by fighting terrorists abroad.  We are confronting terrorism by advancing freedom, liberty, and prosperity as an alternative to the ideologies of hatred and repression.  Our Nation pays tribute to our courageous men and women in uniform serving around the world and the devoted members of our law enforcement, public safety, and intelligence communities at home who work night and day to protect us from harm and preserve the freedom of this great Nation.

Seven years ago, ordinary citizens rose to the challenge, united in prayer, and responded with extraordinary acts of courage, with some giving their lives for the country they loved.  On Patriot Day, we remember all those who were taken from us in an instant and seek their lasting memorial in a safer and more hopeful world.  We must not allow our resolve to be weakened by the passage of time.  We will meet the test that history has given us and continue to fight to rid the world of terrorism and promote liberty around the globe.

By a joint resolution approved December 18, 2001 (Public Law 107-89), the Congress has designated September 11 of each year as “Patriot Day.”

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim September 11, 2008, as Patriot Day.  I call upon the Governors of the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as well as appropriate officials of all units of government, to direct that the flag be flown at half-staff on Patriot Day.  I also call upon the people of the United States to observe Patriot Day with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and remembrance services, to display the flag at half-staff from their homes on that day, and to observe a moment of silence beginning at 8:46 a.m. eastern daylight time to honor the innocent Americans and people from around the world who lost their lives as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

[FR Doc. E8-21253

Billing code 3195-01-P
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 60682 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ROBERT BURSE , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:17

- CR

- 6

- 1

Before REAVLEY, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robert Burse was convicted of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon and sentenced to serve 100 months in prison and a three

- year term of supervised release . The district court determined that he committed this offense in connection with the offense of possession of controlled substances with intent to distribute and applied the cross

- referencing provision of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1)(A). Now, he argues that the district court erred by

* 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 June 14, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-60682 Document: 00514513766 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/14/2018No. 17

- 60682

2 applying this Guideline because the record does not show that he possessed the gun underlying the charge in connection with the possession of drugs with
intent to distribute. This court reviews the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its application of the guidelines de novo. United States v. Hicks , 389 F.3d 514, 529 (5th Cir. 2004). A fin ding is clearly erroneous if a review of the record leaves a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. Griffin , 324 F.3d 330, 365 (5th Cir. 2003). Review of the record supports the district court’s application of t he disputed Guideline, as Burse admitted to facts showing that he possessed controlled substances with the intent to distribute them, and the proximity of the firearm to the controlled substances supports a conclusion that it was used to facilitate the dru g offense , as does the sum of cash found on the unemployed
Burse

. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),(n); United States v. Yanez

- Sosa , 513 F.3d 194, 201 (5th Cir. 2008) ; United States v. Skipper , 74 F.3d 608, 611 (5th Cir. 1996)

. AFFIRMED. Case: 17-60682 Document: 00514513766 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/14/2018
Exhibit 32.1





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 Report of Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (the “Companies”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I, Stephen P. Reynolds, Chief Executive Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(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 Companies.











Date:  November 2, 2010/s/Stephen P. ReynoldsStephen P. ReynoldsChief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 3/31/98
RALSTON PURINA COMPANY BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         146,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  721,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                    26,700
<INVENTORY>                                    589,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,573,400
<PP&E>                                       2,210,700
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,101,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,112,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,327,200
<BONDS>                                      1,820,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          270,300
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,500
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,776,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,112,300
<SALES>                                      2,427,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,427,900
<CGS>                                        1,197,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,197,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               885,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              95,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                249,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                    42,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            226,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                   9,100
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   940,400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     9.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     8.55
<FN>
<F1>LOSS-PROVISION INCLUDED IN OTHER-EXPENSES ABOVE
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
#### Maloney *v.*Watkins.*

(No. 24160

Decided June 14, 1933.)

*Mr. W. F. Hesson*and *Mr. TJmon C. DeFord,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Samuel S. Davidson*and *Mr. W. L. Countryman,*for defendant in error.

*

 Reporter’s Note: For opinion on merits, see *post,*387.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson and Jones, JJ., concur. ,

Bevis, J., not participating.
ANDRE BAZIL

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CA SE NO. 1D 15

- 5419

Opinion filed February 9, 2016.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

-- Original

Jurisdiction

.

Andre Bazil, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, A ttorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CU RIAM.

DISMISSED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(d)(5).

WOLF, ROWE, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D21-1674

_____________________________

DIANNE CURTIS POCASE,

Appellant,

v.

WALMART INC. and SEDGWICK 

CMS/WALMART & SAM'S CLUB,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order of the Office of the Judges of

Compensation Claims.

Jonathan E. Walker, Judge.

Date of Accident: August 12, 2017.

September 8, 2022

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, TANENBAUM, and LONG, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Tyler L. Gray, Pensacola, for Appellant.

Susan N. Marks of McConnaughhay, Coonrod, Pope, Weaver & 

Stern, P.A., Pensacola; Tracey J. Hyde of McConnaughhay, 

Coonrod, Pope, Weaver & Stern, P.A., Panama City, for Appellees.