alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22275]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1525-000]


Powerex Corp.; Notice of Filing

September 17, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 12, 2008, Powerex Corp. (Powerex), 
tendered for filing an Agreement dated September 5, 2008 for Regulating 
Reserve Services between NorthWestern Corporation and Powerex.
    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. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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#a0e6e5f2e3efceccc9cec5f3d5d0d0cfd2d4e0c6c5d2c38ec7cfd6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="feb8bbacbdb1909297909bad8b8e8e918c8abe989b8c9dd0999188">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on October 3, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-22275 Filed 9-23-08; 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>
Exhibit 31.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Certifications
--------------

I, David Micek, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Eagle Broadband, 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(s) 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 abut 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 recent
     fiscal quarter 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(s) 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 July 11, 2005


/s/ David Micek
David Micek
President and Chief Executive Officer

                                       26
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Consolidated Financial Statements as of October 31, 2000 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such consolidated financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               Jul-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                                  Aug-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                    Oct-31-2000
<CASH>                                                               25,000
<SECURITIES>                                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     6,864,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        570,000
<INVENTORY>                                                       6,769,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 14,154,000
<PP&E>                                                              920,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      695,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   22,771,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             8,635,000
<BONDS>                                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                             35,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     22,771,000
<SALES>                                                           5,285,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  5,285,000
<CGS>                                                             2,794,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     2,794,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  1,924,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  116,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     451,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        121,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 330,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                                        330,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                                            0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                          0.12


</TABLE>
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1439

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend permanently

environmental remediation costs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. COYNE (for himself and Mr. WELLER) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend

permanently environmental remediation costs.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Brownfields Clean-up

5 Act’’.
2

•HR 1439 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF EXPENSING OF ENVI2 RONMENTAL REMEDIATION COSTS.

3 Section 198 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

4 (relating to expensing of environmental remediation costs)

5 is amended by striking subsection (h).

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-52-PB

Bienvenido Jerez

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

April 3, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to finalize a negotiated plea agreement. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from April 3, 2007 to May 1, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:07-cr-00052-PB Document 15 Filed 03/26/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The March 27, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued to 

April 16, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

March 22, 2007

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Clyde Garrigan, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00052-PB Document 15 Filed 03/26/07 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6188

STANLEY PATRICK MITCHELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD MOATS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-95-2660-AW)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 30, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Patrick Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,

Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Patrick Mitchell seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998)). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Mitchell’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Mitchell’s motion for

authorization for preparation of transcript at government expense,

and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Mitchell v. Moats, No. CA-95-2660-AW (D. Md. Dec. 31, 1997). See

Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997)

(No. 96-6298). 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.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-27-01/02-SM

Vipin Bansal and 

Narendra Bansal

O R D E R

Defendant Narendra Bansal’s motion to continue the final pretrial

conference and trial is granted (document 27). Trial has been rescheduled for

the September 2007 trial period. Defendant Narendra Bansal shall file a waiver

of speedy trial rights not later than March 23, 2007. On the filing of such

waiver, this 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 defendants in a speedy trial, 

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

unreasonably deny defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: August 24, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: September 5, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00027-SM Document 28 Filed 03/16/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

March 16, 2007

cc: David Ruoff, Esq.

David Vicinanzo, Esq.

Steven Gordon, Esq.

William Christie, Esq.

Arnold Huftalen, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00027-SM Document 28 Filed 03/16/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

PC Connection, Inc.

v. Case No. 07-cv-54-SM

Shopster E-Commerce, Inc.

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated April 9, 2007, no objection having been filed, for the reasons set

forth therein. The Motion for Temporary and Preliminary Injunctive Relief is

hereby denied with respect to defendant Shopster.

SO ORDERED.

May , 2007 _________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Steven E. Grill, Esq. 

George T. Campbell, II, Esq. 

Case 1:07-cv-00054-SM Document 22 Filed 05/03/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gregory Gaylor

v. Civil No. 05-cv-339-SM

President of the United States, et al

R E C U S A L O R D E R

Given plaintiff’s assertion that my former law partners and friends, John Funk and

Michael Callahan, have some involvement in his case, it should be reassigned. I hereby

recuse myself.

SO ORDERED.

January 12, 2006 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Gregory A. Gaylor, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00339-PB Document 6 Filed 01/12/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-218-01-JD

Danilo Deleon

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

60) filed by defendant Deleon is granted. Trial is continued as to

all defendants unless an objection is filed on or before March 14,

2007. 

Defendants shall file waivers of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendants in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for

the reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. 

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: March 13, 2007

cc: Brian Tucker, Esq.

Richard Monteith, Jr., Esq.

Donald Kennedy, Esq.

Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Robert Veiga, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00218-JD Document 62 Filed 03/12/07 Page 1 of 1
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 20-3156

___________________________

 

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

John Thomas White

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

____________

Submitted: April 7, 2021

Filed: April 15, 2021

[Unpublished] 

____________

 

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

 

PER CURIAM.

John White received a 168-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to 

possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). White’s counsel requests permission to withdraw and, in an 

Anders brief, suggests that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We affirm.
-2- 

We conclude that White’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See United 

States v. McKanry, 628 F.3d 1010, 1022 (8th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that “it is 

nearly inconceivable” that once a district court has varied downward, it “abuse[s] its 

discretion in not varying downward [even] further” (quotation marks omitted)). The 

record establishes that the district court1 sufficiently considered the statutory 

sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or 

commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 

(8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no 

other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). 

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel 

permission to withdraw.

______________________________

1

The Honorable Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge for the District 

of Minnesota.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

STEVEN A. SWAN,

Plaintiff

v.

PAUL J. BARBADORO, et al.,

Defendants

Civil No. 1:06-cv-458-GZS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff's motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is GRANTED, but

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended, the full filing fee must be paid as follows: the

sum of $40.56 was due no later than February 8, 2007 (and has been paid). In addition,

20% of each preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's account to be remitted each

time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00 until the sum of $455.00 (the filing fee for

this appeal) has been paid, in addition to the $350.00 (the filing fee for the underlying

complaint) previously ordered for a total due of $805.00.

Failure to pay the fee as ordered will result in dismissal of the appeal. In all other

respects plaintiff's request for in forma pauperis has been granted.

So Ordered.

Dated March 14, 2007 /s/ Margaret J. Kravchuk

U.S. Magistrate Judge

cc: Steven A. Swan, pro se

Bonnie S. Reed, USDC-NH Financial Administrator

Inmate Accounts, FMC-Devens

Case 1:06-cv-00458-GZS Document 21 Filed 03/14/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 27 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-149449) and Amendment No. 513 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-09763),
      and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York and
      (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln New York Account N For Variable Annuities for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    

    

                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    

    

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    August 22, 2019
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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# AGENCY:

United States Commission on Civil Rights. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# Date and Time:

Tuesday, September 30, 2008; 11 a.m. EDT. 

# Place:

Via Teleconference: Public Dial In-1-800-597-7623, Conference ID# 65389894. 

## Meeting Agenda 

I. Approval of Agenda 

II. Program Planning
      - FY 2008 Statutory Report: Enforcing Religious Freedom in Prison
      - FY 2009 Briefing Topic: Employers' Rights to Specify English as the Language of the Workplace

III. Future Agenda Items 

IV. Adjourn 

# Contact Person for Further Information:

Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8582. 

Dated: September 18, 2008. 

David Blackwood, 

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. E8-22236 Filed 9-18-08; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0449. ALUNDA MITCHELL v. EXTRA SPACE STORAGE.

Alunda Mitchell sued Extra Space Storage in magistrate court. Following an

adverse ruling, Mitchell appealed to superior court, which dismissed her appeal. 

Mitchell then filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction.

Because the order at issue disposes of a de novo appeal from a magistrate court

decision, Mitchell was required to follow the discretionary appeal procedures. See

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1); English v. Delbridge, 216 Ga. App. 366, 367 (454 SE2d 175)

(1995). Mitchell’s failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

November 15, 2017

11/15/2017