alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61468-61469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24958]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2873-000]

Lexington Power & Light, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

September 29, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Lexington Power & Light, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is October 19, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access

[[Page 61469]]

who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also 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 [email protected]. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.`
[FR Doc. 2010-24958 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2003 (the  "Report") of TF Financial  Corporation  (the  "Company") as filed
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof,  we, Kent C.
Lufkin, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis R. Stewart,  Executive
Vice  President and Chief  Financial  Officer  (Principal  Accounting  Officer),
hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section  13(a) 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 Company.





                                          /s/ Kent C. Lufkin
                                          ------------------
Date:      August 13, 2003                Kent C. Lufkin
           ---------------                President and CEO
                                         (Principal Executive Officer)





                                          /s/ Dennis R. Stewart
                                          ---------------------
Date:      August 13, 2003                Dennis R. Stewart
           ---------------                Executive Vice President and
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                         (Principal Financial &
                                             Accounting Officer)
#### Ahmad DASTJERDI, Appellant, v. Siavash AMANISH, Appellee.

No. 4D10-3079.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 23, 2011.

*156Alan P. Dagen of The Law Offices of Alan Dagen, P.A., Weston, for appellant.

Bryan Yarnell and Irwin R. Gilbert of Gilbert PA/Yarnell PLLC, Palm Beach Gardens, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*Dismissed. See Winkelman v. Toll,*632 So.2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA1994).

HAZOURI, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ„ concur.
Exhibit 23  
 
 
 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-126822 on Form S-3 of our report dated February 29, 2008, relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedule of South Jersey Gas
Company (which report expressed an unqualified opinion and included an
explanatory paragraph as to changes in accounting principles related to the
adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting
for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109in 2007, FASB Statement No. 123(R), Share-Based
Payment and FASB Statement No. 158, Employers’
Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans, an
amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R) in 2006, and
FASB Interpretation No. 47, Accounting
for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations in 2005), appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of South Jersey Gas Company for the year ended
December 31, 2007.
 
 
 /s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
 Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
 February
29, 2008
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1364 KA 10-00551** 
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SHAMEL X. SMITH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PIOTR BANASIAK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (SUSAN C. AZZARELLI OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered June 9, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (four counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and unlawful possession of marihuana.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reducing the period of postrelease supervision imposed on each count to a period of one year and as modified the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) and four counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16 [1]). As part of the plea agreement, Supreme Court stated that it would sentence defendant to concurrent five-year terms of imprisonment with a one-year period of postrelease supervision. We agree with defendant that the court erred in enhancing the sentence by imposing a 11⁄2-year period of postrelease supervision that was not included in the plea agreement ( see generally People v Pickett , 90 AD3d 1526, 1527). Although defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review “because [he] did not object to the enhanced sentence, nor did he move to withdraw the appeal or to vacate the judgment of conviction” ( People v Sprague , 82 AD3d 1649, 1649, lv denied 17 NY3d 801), we nevertheless exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We therefore modify the judgment by reducing the period of postrelease supervision to one year. As modified, the**-2- 1364 KA 10-00551** 

sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: December 21, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### Joe Nathan WILLINGHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D10-53.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 24, 2010.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Richard J. Sanders, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Ap-pellee.

DAVIS, Judge.

Joe Nathan Willingham challenges his convictions and sentences for aggravated battery with a firearm causing great bodily harm and shooting at, within, or into a vehicle. We affirm his convictions and sentences without further comment. We remand for the limited purpose of correcting a scrivener’s error which appears on the face of the written judgment. Although the record reflects that Willingham was convicted after a jury trial, the written judgment erroneously indicates that he entered a no contest plea. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to correct this error. *See Newson v. State,*867 So.2d 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

ALTENBERND and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.
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

     In connection  with the Annual  Report of Unitrend, Inc.  (The
Company)  on  Form  10-KSB/ for   the  year  ending   December   31,
2002,  as filed  with the Securities and Exchange Commission  on the
date hereof (the Report), I,  Conrad A.H. Jelinger, Chief  Executive
Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C. ss. 1350,  as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; 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/  Conrad A.H. Jelinger
                                 -----------------------------
                                 Conrad A.H. Jelinger
March 28, 2003
                                 Chief Executive Officer, Interim
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 President
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1661 

To amend the Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act of 2000 to permit certain 

annuitants of the retirement programs of the United States Park Police 

and United States Secret Service Uniformed Division to receive the 

adjustments in pension benefits to which such annuitants would otherwise 

be entitled as a result of the conversion of members of the United 

States Park Police and United States Secret Service Uniformed Division 

to a new salary schedule under the amendments made by such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 22, 2007 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN (for himself, Mr. PLATTS, Mr. STUPAK, Mrs. JO ANN

DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, and Mrs. DRAKE) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend the Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act of 2000 

to permit certain annuitants of the retirement programs 

of the United States Park Police and United States 

Secret Service Uniformed Division to receive the adjustments in pension benefits to which such annuitants 

would otherwise be entitled as a result of the conversion 

of members of the United States Park Police and United 

States Secret Service Uniformed Division to a new salary 

schedule under the amendments made by such Act. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 1661 IH

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 ‘‘Federal Law Enforce5 ment Pension Adjustment Equity Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PERMITTING ADJUSTMENTS IN PENSION BENEFITS 

7 FOR UNITED STATES PARK POLICE AND 

8 UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE UNI9 FORMED DIVISION ANNUITANTS FOR PAY10 MENTS MADE IN 2007 AND SUBSEQUENT 

11 YEARS. 

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 905(f) of the Law En13 forcement Pay Equity Act of 2000 (sec. 5–561.02(f), D.C. 

14 Official Code) is amended by striking the period at the 

15 end and inserting the following: ‘‘, for any payment made 

16 prior to January 1, 2007.’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

18 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact19 ment of the Law Enforcement Pay Equity Act of 2000. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-85380, 333-30591 and 333-109478) pertaining to the 1997 Stock OptionPlan/Stock Issuance Plan and the Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Vista MedicalTechnologies, Inc. of our report dated March 2, 2004, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements and schedules of Vista Medical Technologies,Inc.  included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December31, 2003.

 

 
|                   | /s/  Ernst & Young LLP |   |
|------------------------|----------------------------|--------|
|                   |                       |
| Boston,  Massachusetts |                       |
| March  29, 2004        |                       |

 

----
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF CRESCENT OPERATING, INC.


                                             State of Incorporation or 
Name of Subsidiary                           Organization

COI Hotel Group, Inc.                        Texas

WOCOI Investment Company                     Texas

RoseStar Management LLC                      Texas

Desert Mountain Development Corporation      Delaware

Woodlands Land Company, Inc.                 Texas

Crescent CS Holdings Corporation             Delaware

Crescent CS Holdings II Corporation          Delaware

RSCR Arizona Corp.                           Delaware

RSSW Corp.                                   Delaware

Moody-Day, Inc.                              Texas

COPI Colorado, LP                            Delaware

CRL Investments, Inc.                        Texas

COI Arena Company                            Texas

Crescent Development Management Corp.        Delaware

Desert Mountain Properties, LP               Delaware

Machinery, Inc.                              Oklahoma

Harvey Equipment Center, Inc.                Ohio

Western Traction Company                     California

L & H Leasing Company                        Ohio

Crescent Machinery Company                   Texas

Oklahoma Machinery, Inc.                     Texas
#### J.S., Mother of A.S., Minor Child, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 1D10-4974.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 22, 2010.

Crystal McBee Frusciante of Crystal McBee Law Firm, P.A., Jupiter, and Susan M. Barber, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Region One, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ward L. Metzger, Children’s Legal Services, Department of Children and Families, Jacksonville, and Kelley Schaeffer, Appellate Counsel, Guardian ad Litem Program, Tavares, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a final order adjudicating her child a dependent child. The Department of Children and Family Services and Guardian ad Litem both appropriately concede that the evidence presented at the adjudicatory hearing was legally insufficient to support a determination of dependency. Accordingly, we reverse the adjudication of dependency, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
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


Certification of Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Annual Report of Industrial Minerals Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,,Robert
G.Dinning, Chief Executive Officer 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 and belief:

     (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
Company.

March 30, 2009                         /s/ Robert G. Dinning
--------------                         ---------------------
                                          Robert G. Dinning
                                          President & CEO




<PAGE>
American Media, Inc. Newsstand Net Profit Plan for Michael Porche



 Exhibit 10.2 
 AMERICAN MEDIA, INC. 
 NEWSSTAND NET PROFIT PLAN 
 FY 2009 
 Mike Porche 

 Target Bonus is $87,500.00 for FY 2009. 
  

	 	•	 	 Hit $*** newsstand net profits earn 50% of targeted bonus ($43,750.00) 


  

	 	•	 	 Hit $*** newsstand net profits earn 75% of targeted bonus ($65,625.00) 


  

	 	•	 	 Hit $*** newsstand net profits earn 100% of targeted bonus ($87,500.00) 


  

	 	•	 	 Hit $*** newsstand net profits earn 125% of targeted bonus ($109,375.00) 


  

	 	•	 	 Hit $*** newsstand net profits earn 150% of targeted bonus ($131,250.00) 


 All bonus targets are in relationship of the budget for newsstand net versus the actual newsstand net profit earned by AMI (see Attachment “A”).
The following is a description of the term, newsstand net profit: 
  

	 	•	 	 Newsstand net includes the newsstand profit for each title of the Company. Newsstand profit is the net newsstand revenue less direct newsstand costs. There is a
separate magazine newsstand P&L, which backs up every line on the statement. 


  

	 	•	 	 Newsstand net profit provides you financial incentive to negotiate the best deal possible for wholesaler claims, promotions, discounts, RDA and racking costs. For
example, if we spend more or less on terminal promotions, this impacts newsstand net profit. 


  

	 	•	 	 Newsstand net is charged for AMI’s unsold copies at a standard annual rate. This provides an incentive to minimize unsold copies, while maximizing our sale.



  

	 	•	 	 Newsstand net also includes the overall profit of DSI. 


  

	•	 	 All components of newsstand net shall be as reflected on the books of American Media in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.



  

	•	 	 For FY 2009, our newsstand net is budgeted at $*** for our publications and $*** from DSI for a total of $*** . 


  

			
	David Pecker	    	Mike Porche
		
	 /s/ David Pecker
	    	 /s/ Michael Porche

		
	Date	    	Date

  

	***	Selected confidential information has been omitted from this Exhibit 10.2 pursuant to a request for confidential treatment filed separately with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antoin Deandre McDONALD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-6854.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 15, 2000.

Decided Jan. 11, 2001.

Antoin Deandre McDonald, pro se. Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for appellee.

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Antoin Deandre McDonald, a pro se inmate, challenged on numerous grounds, including ineffective assistance of counsel, his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. *See*28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). The Government responded to the § 2255 motion and attached the affidavit of McDonald’s former trial counsel. Thereafter, *199without giving any notice to McDonald, the district court dismissed McDonald’s § 2255 motion on the merits.

In his motion to reconsider, filed in the district court, McDonald complained that “before the Petitioner could respond to the U.S. Attorney’s motion to dismiss ... this court dismissed the Petitioner’s § 2255 claims....” (R. 36 at p. 1). Nonetheless, the district court also denied McDonald’s motion to reconsider.

We grant a certificate of appealability and vacate and remand this case to the district court for failure to comply with this court’s opinion in *Roseboro v. Garrison,*528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir.1975). Before a judgment may be entered against a pro se party, the district court must notify the pro se party, against whom summary judgment may be granted, of his right to file counter-affidavits or other appropriate materials, and give him a reasonable opportunity to do so. *Id.*Here, despite McDonald’s notice to the court, in his motion to reconsider, that he was unaware of any duty to respond to the Government’s response to his § 2255 motion, the district court failed to provide him with proper notice and time under *Roseboro.*Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability and vacate and remand to the district court for proceedings in compliance with this opinion. We expressly decline to rule on the propriety of the district court’s grounds for dismissal on the merits of McDonald’s claims.

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.

*VACATED AND REMANDED.*
#### August GUILLOT and Juli Guillot, Individually and as Survivors of their Minor Child, Collin Jacob Guillot, and Natural Tutor of their Minor Child, Madison Guillot v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, Lamarque Dodge, Inc., ABC Insurance Company, XYZ Insurance Company and John Doe.

No. 2011-OC-0321.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 2, 2011.

*462In re Guillot, August et al.; Guillot, Collin Jacob; Guillot, Juli; Guillot, Madison; —Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 94-840.

Denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32.3

LIBERTY PROPERTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY
RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Liberty Property Limited
Partnership (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKY, Chief Executive Officer of Liberty Property
Trust (the sole general partner of the Company), certify, in connection with
Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that based on 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKYWilliam P. HankowskyChairman, President and Chief Executive Officerof Liberty Property Trust, its sole general partnerDate: November 8, 2004