alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 61467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24945]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL10-54-000]


Desert Southwest Power, LLC; Notice of Filing

September 27, 2010.
    Take notice that on September 24, 2010, Desert Southwest Power, LLC 
(Desert Southwest) supplemented the responses filed on September 10, 
2010 with additional clarifying information, in response to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) request for additional 
information contained in the Commission's July 28, 2010 letter 
regarding Desert Southwest's petition for declaratory order requesting 
incentive rate treatment for its proposed transmission project filed on 
March 30, 2010.
    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#b3f5f6e1f0fcdddfdaddd6e0c6c3c3dcc1c7f3d5d6c1d09dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c6a697e6f6342404542497f595c5c435e586c4a495e4f024b435a">[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 October 4, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24945 Filed 10-4-10; 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>
#### Joel Phillip DAIGLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D09-3444.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 27, 2011.

*1208Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ephrat Livni, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Diane F. Medley, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed. See Hardee v. State,*534 So.2d 706 (Fla.1988); *Jones v. State,*599 So.2d 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); and *Peoples v. State,*436 So.2d 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

GROSS, C.J., HAZOURI and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
#### Ahmad EID *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 98-573

968 S.W.2d 61

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered June 4, 1998

*John Wesley Hall,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Appellant, Ahmad Eid, by his attorney, John Wesley Hall, Jr., has filed a motion for belated appeal. Appellant was tried on February 12, 1998, and convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, and simultaneous possession of guns and drugs. Significantly, the judgment was not entered until February 20, 1998, but the notice of appeal was filed on February 18, 1998, making the appeal untimely.

*466Mr. Hall admitted in the motion that he untimely filed the notice of appeal due to a mistake on his part. We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. *See In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases,*265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam). Accordingly, the motion for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. *Id.*
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1689 

To provide support to combat illegal downloading on college and university 

campuses. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2007 

Mr. KELLER of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To provide support to combat illegal downloading on college 

and university campuses. 

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 ‘‘Curb Illegal 

5 Downloading on College Campuses Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) Illegal downloading and online distribution 

9 of movies, music, software, games and other intellecVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:27 Mar 29, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1689.IH H1689

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 1689 IH

1 tual property has increased significantly on college 

2 and university campuses. 

3 (2) Computer systems at colleges and univer4 sities are intended primarily to aid in educating and 

5 increase research capability among students and fac6 ulty. Increased illegal downloading and distribution 

7 of content through peer-to-peer networks puts great 

8 strain on these systems and imposes significant costs 

9 on universities. 

10 (3) Additional staff and resources are required 

11 to respond to notices of illegal downloading, costing 

12 more money. 

13 (4) Illegal downloading and file sharing exposes 

14 campus networks to computer viruses and worms, 

15 and can put sensitive personal and proprietary infor16 mation at risk. 

17 (5) Programs can be developed that will stop il18 legal downloading while still maintaining student 

19 privacy and academic freedom. 

20 SEC. 3. SUPPORT THROUGH THE FUND FOR THE IMPROVE21 MENT OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION. 

22 Section 741(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

23 (20 U.S.C. 1138(a)) is amended— 

24 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph 

25 (7); 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•HR 1689 IH

1 (2) by striking the period at the end of para2 graph (8) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

3 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

4 paragraph: 

5 ‘‘(9) supporting efforts to establish pilot pro6 grams and initiatives to help offset the costs associ7 ated with implementing model programs and policies 

8 on college campuses to reduce illegal downloading of 

9 copyrighted content in order to— 

10 ‘‘(A) improve the security and integrity of 

11 campus computer networks; and 

12 ‘‘(B) save telecommunications bandwidth 

13 costs, while ensuring such bandwidth is first 

14 and foremost made available for research and 

15 education-related purposes.’’. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****SECURITIES ANDEXCHANGE COMMISSION RULE 13a-14(a)**

 

I, Dale N. Wahl, certifythat:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of Metro One Telecommunications, Inc. for the quarter ended March31, 2004;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a)          Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)          Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)          All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date:                  May10, 2004

 

 
| /s/ Dale N. Wahl        |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Dale N. Wahl            |
| Senior Vice President,  |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Rocky Lee STALEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joyce K. CONLEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-7304.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 11, 2001.

Decided Jan. 17, 2001.

*255Rocky Lee Staley, pro se.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Rocky Lee Staley seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Staley’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, *see*Fed.R.App .P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 6, 2000. Staley’s notice of appeal was filed on September 8, 2000. Because Staley failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7757

JERRY RAYSOR, a/k/a Jerry Razor,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden; EVANS CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-01-2656-7-18BG)

Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 26, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Raysor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Raysor seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition, construed as filed under 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). 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 a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See Raysor v. Eagleton, No. CA01-2656-7-18BG (D.S.C. Sept. 19, 2001). 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
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

In connection with the special financial report (the ‘‘Report’’) pursuant to Rule 15d-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Atlantic Express Transportation Corp. (the ‘‘Company’’), I, Nathan Schlenker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby 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:

|  |           |                                                                                                                                               |
|--|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (i)  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

|  |            |                                                                                                                                                      |
|--|------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (ii)  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|  | /s/ Nathan Schlenker                    Nathan SchlenkerChief Financial Officer |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Date: September 28, 2007

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

----
No. 11,217.

#### Montgomery *v.*Aydelotte.

Filed April 24, 1884.

From the Harrison Circuit Court.

*L. Jordan*and *S. J. Wright,*for appellant.

*W. N. Tracewell*and *R. J. Tracewell,*for appellee.

Hammond, J.

This action is substantially the same as that of *Montgomery*v. *Aydelotte,*95 Ind. 144, except in this case the appellee’s action was not barred by the statute of limitations.

In this case the appellee purchased the land at tax sale, on February 7th, 1865. He might therefore have claimed his tax deed and commenced his action on February 8th, 1867. His action was commenced on August 19th, 1881, which was less than fifteen years after his cause of action accrued.

We think the appellee’s complaint was sufficient for the purpose of enforcing his tax lien. The case was tried by the court, resulting in a finding and judgment for the appellee for the amount of his claim. Various objections were made to the rulings of the court, but as we are satisfied that a correct result was reached in the trial, we do not deem it necessary to consider these objections. The case falls fairly within the provisions of section 658, R. S. 1881, which requires this court not to reverse a judgment where it appears that the merits have been fully tried and determined in the court below.

Affirmed, with costs.
627 A.2d 1133

#### T.M. v. NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES.

April 29, 1993.

Petition for certification is granted, and the matter is summarily remanded to the Division of Developmental Disabilities for reconsideration in light of *Mr. & Mrs. J.E. v. State of New Jersey*131 *N.J.*552, 622 A.2d 227 (1993).
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of RTIN Holdings,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB for the period  ending  September  30,  2003,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Steve
Cavender, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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



/s/ Steve Cavender
Steve Cavender
Chief Financial Officer
November 19, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 61511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25005]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Approved Tribal-State Compact.

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

SUMMARY: This notice publishes approval of the State of Oklahoma 
Cherokee Nation Off-Track Wagering Compact.

DATES: Effective Date: October 5, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary--Policy and 
Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class 
III gaming activities on Indian lands. This Compact authorizes the 
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma to engage in off-track wagering.

    Dated: September 23, 2010.
Larry Echo Hawk,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2010-25005 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P
#### Jennifer L. CAMINITA Wife of/and Frank L. Caminita v. Regina Wife of/and Barney CORE, Smith and Core, Inc., ABC Insurance Company, XYZ Insurance Company, MNO Insurance Company, John Doe Supply and John Doe Subcontractors.

No. 2011-C-1172.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Caminita, Frank L.; Caminita, Jennifer L.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 100,021; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1961.

Denied.
#### SUNCRUZ CASINOS, LLC, Appellant, v. Danny STOUT, Appellee.

No. 5D09-987.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Feb. 18, 2011.

Rehearing Denied May 2, 2011.

Hinda Klein, of Conroy, Simberg, Ga-non, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow & Schefer, P.A., Hollywood, for Appellant.

Christopher V. Carlyle and Shannon McLin Carlyle of The Carlyle Appellate Law Firm, The Villages, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, J., concurs.

COHEN, J., concurs specially, with opinion.

TORPY, J., dissents, with opinion.

COHEN, J.,

concurring.

One might think that in a case where a verdict in excess of $550,000 was rendered, *1162Appellant would provide a complete trial transcript to permit a full review. Instead, only excerpts were prepared until Appellant filed a transcript as an appendix to its initial brief. Because the transcript was not part of the record on appeal, it cannot be considered. *Miller v. Miller,*767 So.2d 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

To prevail on appeal based upon the denial of a proposed jury instruction, the proponent of the instruction must establish that “the requested jury instruction contained an accurate statement of the law, that the facts of the case support the giving of the instruction, and that the instruction was necessary for the jury to properly resolve the issues in the case.” *Giordano v. Ramirez,*503 So.2d 947, 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Dealing with trial excerpts is problematic; we have no transcript establishing the entirety of the facts placed before the jury, only a partial transcript of the charge conference, and no transcript of the jury instructions provided to the jury. Given the state of the record, I agree that Appellant cannot establish reversible error and that affirmance is required.

TORPY, J.,

dissenting.

I would reverse because the trial court failed to adequately instruct the jury on the defense theory. In this slip and fall case, Appellant claimed that Appellee was an “undiscovered trespasser,” as defined by statute — a status that affects Appellant’s duty. Although the trial court acknowledged a fact dispute on this issue, it denied a proposed special instruction that would have given the jury the legal framework to resolve this issue.
EXHIBIT 23



CONSENT OF S.R. SNODGRASS, A.C.



---

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



To the Shareholders and

the Board of Directors

of Sistersville Bancorp, Inc.



We consent to
incorporation by reference of our report dated April 17, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Sistersville Bancorp, Inc. as of March 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income,
stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended March 31, 2003. Said report appears as Exhibit 13 of Sistersville Bancorp, Inc.s Annual Form 10-KSB.



|/s/    S. R. SNODGRASS, A.C.
|----------------------------
|                            
|Wheeling, West Virginia     
|June 10, 2003