alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 7739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2414]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL08-37-000]


Integrys Energy Group; Notice of Filing

February 4, 2008.
    Take notice that on January 29, 2008, Integrys Energy Group, Inc., 
on behalf of its subsidiaries with electric market-based rate 
authority, filed a ``Petition for Declaratory Order, pursuant to 18 CFR 
207(a) (2007).
    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#dd9b988f9e92b3b1b4b3b88ea8adadb2afa99dbbb8afbef3bab2ab"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f9bfbcabbab6979590979caa8c8989968b8db99f9c8b9ad79e968f">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 28, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-2414 Filed 2-8-08; 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>
Exhibit 23.4

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors

HSBC Electronic Data Processing (India) Private Limited

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-138404 and No. 333-138404-01) on Form S-3 of HSBC Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I of our attestation report dated March 16, 2009 with respect to HSBC Electronic Data Processing (India) Private Limited’s  (the Company) assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in 1122(d)(4)(viii) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation ABapplicable to the servicing of asset backed securitization transactions secured by private label credit card receivables, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008. Management has determined that all other criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) are not applicable to the Company’s activities.  Our attestation report appears in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of HSBC Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I.  

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

March 25, 2009
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. The YVETTE COMPANY, Otherwise Known as Yvette Company, Inc., Appellant, and Henry Salomons, David Oppenheim, Charles H. Cox, and Max Hilderbrandt, Defendants.*

No. 129.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 20, 1937.

George E. Carmody, of New York City, for appellant.

Lamar Hardy, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Joseph W. Burns, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for the United States.

Before MANTON, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

*

Writ of certiorari denied 58 S.Ct. 646, 82 L.Ed. —.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



|                                                                      |  |                                 |  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------- | -
|Name and State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation                 |  | RegistrantsPercentageOwnership |  
|Foothill Independent Bank, a California corporation                   |  | 100                             | %
|Foothill BPC, Inc., a California corporation                          |  | 100                             | %
|Foothill Independent Statutory Trust I, a Connecticut statutory trust |  | 100                             | %

In accordance with the instructions set forth in Paragraph (b) of Item 601 of Regulation
S-K, there have been omitted those subsidiaries that, if considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary as of December 31, 2005.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000766659
<NAME>                        ENERGROUP TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS


<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,271
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,642
<OTHER-SE>                                    (4,913)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               415
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (415)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.01)



</TABLE>
<page>				       EXHIBIT 32.02


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Morgan Stanley Charter
Campbell L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Lee Horwitz,
Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation, the
general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(1)	The Report 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 Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.








By:	  /s/	Lee Horwitz

Name:		Lee Horwitz
Title:	Chief Financial Officer

Date:		March 9, 2007
#### Harry E. BRADLEY, Receiver of The Nogales National Bank of Nogales, Arizona, a National Banking Association, Appellant, v. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, a Body Politic and Corporate, Appellee.

No. 8408.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Stephen D. Monahan, of Nogales, Ariz., for appellant.

James V. Robins, of Nogales, Ariz., for appellee.

Before GARRECHT, MATHEWS, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.'

The decree is affirmed upon the authority of McNair v. Knott, 302 U.S. —, 58 S.Ct. 245, 82 L.Ed. -, decided December 13, 1937.
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 8, 2014

No. 04-13-00818-CR

Mark Anthony GARCIA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009CR2731A

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The 

Appellant’s brief is due June 6, 2014. No further extensions of time granted.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of May, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, each of the undersigned
certifies that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Lifeline Systems, Inc.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Lifeline Systems, Inc. and will be retained by
Lifeline Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                      |  |  |  | 
|--------------------- |  |  |  | 
|                     
|                      |  |  |  | 
|Dated: March 26, 2003 |  |  |  | 



|                      |  |  |  | 
|--------------------- |  |  |  | 
|                     
|                      |  |  |  | 
|Dated: March 26, 2003 |  |  |  |
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ NO . 09
- 24
- 00119
- CR

__________________
IN RE SAMAD SEFIANE

__________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 17
- 27943

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Samad Sefiane argues th at he received an illegal sentence because the evidence from the trial of his criminal case, which occurred in 2018, isn’t sufficient to support the jury’s finding that he inflicted a

se rious bodily injury on the victim of the assault

. 1 For relief, Sefiane asks that this

1 Relator was convicted of aggravated family violence assault in the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County , Texas, in Trial Court Cause Number 17

- 27943. See Sefiane v. State , No. 09

- 18

- 00216 -CR, 2019 WL 2439490 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont June 12, 2019, pet. ref ’ d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Even though Sefiane didn’t certify that he served a copy of his peti tion for mandamus on the Respondent and the Real Party in Interest, we suspend that requirement under the circumstances to expedite resolving the complaints that he has raised in his2 Court order the trial cour t “ to hold a hearing on his application to correct the penal statute and sentence.” In a criminal case, the relator has the burden to establis h that he lacks an adequate remedy at law and that the act which he is seeking the Court of Appeals to compel is ministerial rather than discretionary in nature

. 2 Before filing this original proceeding, Sefiane filed an appeal from the conviction he incur red in Trial Court Cause Number 17

- 27943 for aggravated family violence assault

. 3 After we affirmed his conviction , the judgment of conviction became final and the Court issued its mandate. After a mandate issues , t he adequate remedy at law available to a defendant to complain of an alleged error in the judgment requires the judgment’s correction through the filing of a writ of habeas corpus

. 4 What’s more, Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides the exclusive means by which a defendant convicted of a felony may challenge his conviction unless the punishment that was assessed in the judgment included the death penalty

. 5

petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 2 (Suspension of Rules); id

. 9.5 (a) (Service of All Documents Required). 2 See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding )

. 3 See Sefiane , 2019 WL 2439490, at *1 ; see also Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(b)(2)

. 4 See Ater , 802 S.W.2d at 243. 5 See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. a rt.11.07, §§ 3, 5.3 The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 6
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM Submitted on April 30, 2024 Opinion Delivered May 1, 2024 Do Not P ublish Before Horton , Johnson and Wright , JJ.

6 See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1536 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1536

For the relief of Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, 
                         and Adilene Martinez.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2007

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
For the relief of Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, 
                         and Adilene Martinez.

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

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 
seq.), Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, and 
Adilene Martinez shall each be deemed to have been lawfully admitted 
to, and remained in, the United States, and shall be eligible for 
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence under section 245 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) upon filing an application for such 
adjustment of status.
    (b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall apply 
only if the application for adjustment of status is filed with 
appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
    (c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting of 
permanent resident status to Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela 
Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez, the Secretary of State shall 
instruct the proper officer to reduce by 3, during the current or 
subsequent fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are 
made available to natives of the country of the birth of Jose Alberto 
Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez under 
section 202(e) or 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1152(e), 1153(a)), as applicable.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02720-REB-CBS

JOSE ARGUETA-PEREIRA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSE BRUNO OCHOA, and

KIMZEY CASING SERVICE, LLC,

Defendants.

FINAL JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), and the orders entered in this case, Final 

Judgment is entered.

A. Pursuant to the Order Granting Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss [#22]

entered by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on July 2, 2012, which order is incorporated by

reference,

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That defendant’s Motion To Dismiss [#10] filed January 4, 2012, is

GRANTED;

2. That the plaintiff’s claims against defendant Kimzey Casing Service, LLC are

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

3. That defendant Kimzey Casing Service, LLC is DROPPED as a party to this

action, and the caption shall be AMENDED accordingly.

B. Pursuant to the Order of Dismissal [#24] entered by Judge Robert E.

Case 1:11-cv-02720-REB-CBS Document 25 Filed 10/31/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Blackburn on October 29, 2012, which order is incorporated by reference,

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), the plaintiff’s claims against defendant Jose

Bruno Ochoa are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

2. That JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of the defendant, Jose Bruno Ochoa,

and against the plaintiff, Jose Argueta-Pereira;

3. That the defendant, Jose Bruno Ochoa is AWARDED his costs, to be taxed by

the Clerk of the Court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1; and

4. That this case is CLOSED.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 31st day of October, 2012.

FOR THE COURT:

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

By: s/Edward P. Butler 

Edward P. Butler

Deputy Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-02720-REB-CBS Document 25 Filed 10/31/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02333-LTB-CBS

LaFAYE ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FED EX GROUND/HOME DELIVERY,

Defendant.

________________________________________________________________________

ORDER 

________________________________________________________________________

This case is before me on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc 26) be granted

and this case be dismissed in its entirety. The Recommendation was issued and served

on March 1, 2013. Plaintiff has filed timely written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation. I therefore review the Recommendation de novo in light of the file and

record in this case.

The Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in applying the Doctrine of

Collateral Estoppel to her claims based upon a prior final arbitration which denied her

claims also asserted here. She also argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in his

determination that her Third Claim for Relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must otherwise

be dismissed, the Magistrate Judge erred in his determination that her claim under the

Equality Act of 2010 must otherwise be dismissed, that the Magistrate Judge erred in his

determination that her claim under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act must otherwise

Case 1:11-cv-02333-LTB-CBS Document 60 Filed 03/21/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
be dismissed, that the Magistrate Judge erred in recommending dismissal of her economic

duress claim, and that the Magistrate Judge erred in recommending dismissal of her claim

for declaratory judgment.

I have reviewed her specific timely objections de novo and conclude that the

Magistrate Judge’s thorough and comprehensive recommendation is correct in all respects

including his application of the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel to her case and his

application of analysis to her Third, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Claims.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint (Doc 26) is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED in its entirety.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

Lewis T. Babcock, Judge

DATED: March 21, 2013

Case 1:11-cv-02333-LTB-CBS Document 60 Filed 03/21/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.01


             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 Focus Affiliates, Inc. ( the
"Registrant" ) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ( the
"Quarterly Report" ), I, Michael Burke, Director and Chief Executive Officer of
the Registrant, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge:

( 1 ) The Quarterly Report, to which this certification is attached as
Exhibit 32.01, 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.


Dated : October 17, 2008           Signature :  /s/ Michael Burke
                                                ----------------------------
                                                Michael Burke
                                                Director and Chief
                                                Executive Officer


<PAGE>
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

July 12, 2012 

ERRATA 

______________________ 

2012-1228 

SCIELE PHARMA INC. (now known as Shionogi Pharma Inc.), 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

and 

 

ANDRX CORPORATION, ANDRX PHARMACEUTICALS INC. 

(doing business as Watson Laboratories Inc. - Florida), 

ANDRX PHARMACEUTICALS L.L.C., ANDRX LABORATORIES 

(NJ) INC., 

ANDRX EU LTD., and ANDRX LABS L.L.C., 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

 LUPIN LTD. and LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., 

 Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

MYLAN INC. and MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., 

 Defendants. 

______________________ 

Decided July 2, 2012 

Precedential Order 

______________________ 
Please make the following change: 

Page 2, correct name “Douglas C. Hochstetler” to “Douglass C. 

Hochstetler”