alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68350-68351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27954]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-1885-000]


Oregon Trail Wind Park, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

October 28, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Oregon Trail Wind Park, 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.

[[Page 68351]]

    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 November 18, 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 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 dockets(s). For assistance 
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f1b7b4a3b2be9f9d989f94a28481819e8385b197948392df969e87"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="65232037262a0b090c0b00361015150a171125030017064b020a13">[email protected]</span></a>. 
or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27954 Filed 11-4-10; 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>
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/ Timothy B. Shannon
                                 ----------------------
                                 Timothy B. Shannon
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer

April 6, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1990 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1990

To authorize the Economic Development Administration to make grants to 
    producers of taconite for implementation of new technologies to 
increase productivity, to reduce costs, and to improve overall product 
                        quality and performance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 9, 2003

  Mr. Dayton introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Economic Development Administration to make grants to 
    producers of taconite for implementation of new technologies to 
increase productivity, to reduce costs, and to improve overall product 
                        quality and performance.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Taconite Research Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) maintaining our Nation's domestic steel industry is 
        essential to a peacetime or wartime economy and critical to our 
        national defense;
            (2) about 98 percent of taconite is used in the iron and 
        steel industry;
            (3) taconite is the principal iron ore mined in the United 
        States;
            (4) Minnesota's iron ore mining industry is vital to the 
        State's economy, is ranked 8th nationally in total nonfuel 
        mineral production, and employees approximately 4,000 people;
            (5) Minnesota's taconite production has decreased by 
        14,000,000 metric tons since 1998;
            (6) Northeastern Minnesota, which is heavily dependent on 
        the taconite industry that needs new technologies, has at least 
        100 years of those reserves that can be economically produced; 
        and
            (7) the Natural Resources Research Institute of the 
        University of Minnesota has developed improvements based on new 
        technologies that taconite producing companies can implement, 
        which will reduce production costs, improve the quality of 
        taconite pellets, and produce a value-added high iron ore 
        content commodity.

SEC. 3. GRANT AUTHORITY.

    The Economic Development Administration is authorized to make 
grants to producers of taconite to implement new technologies to 
increase productivity, to reduce costs, and to improve overall product 
quality and performance.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act 
$100,000,000. Such sums shall remain authorized until expended.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 14, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10633

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TEDDY WAYNE SOLOMON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:98-CR-299-1 

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

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Teddy Wayne Solomon, federal prisoner # 25882-077, appeals the

district court’s denial of his supplemental 18 U.S.C. § 3582 motion

to modify his term of imprisonment. Solomon’s motion challenging

the constitutionality of his sentence, which was filed after the

conclusion of his direct appeal and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, is an

unauthorized motion. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142

(5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, Solomon’s appeal is DISMISSED for

lack of jurisdiction.
DENY and Opinion Filed May 9, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00229-CV IN RE HEARTLAND EXPRESS, INC. OF IOWA, Relator Original Proceeding from the 95th District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-00697-D MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Osborne, Partida-Kipness, and Smith Opinion by Justice Smith Before the Court is relator’s March 18, 2022 petition for writ of mandamus. In the petition, relator challenges the tr ial court’s order granting real party in interest’s motion to compel discovery. Entitlement to mandamus relief requires re lator to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that rela tor lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Based on our review of the petition, respons e, reply, and the re cord, we conclude that relator has failed to demons trate an abuse of discretion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).–2– Accordingly, we deny the petition for wr it of mandamus, and we lift the stay issued by this Court’s March 18, 2022 order.

220229F.P05 /Crai g Smith/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
#### RENEGAR v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO.

No. 453P01

Case below: 145 N.C. App. 78

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 October 2001.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,
Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahr a Bridget M. McCormac k
David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstei n Kurtis T. Wilde r Elizabeth T. Clement,
J ustices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at t he direction of the Court.

April 4, 2018

t0328 

# Order

Clerk 

### April 4, 2018

156459

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 156 459 COA: 332414 Ingham CC: 15-000411-FC DASHAWN MARTISE CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 18, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIE D, because we are not persuaded that the questions pre sented should be reviewed by th is Court.
**Exhibit 10**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File Number 333-12156) pertaining to the Radware Ltd. 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File Number 333-13818) pertaining to the Radware Ltd. 1997 Key Employee Share Incentive Plan and 2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in the Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-12156) pertaining to Radware Ltd. Amended and Restated 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in the Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-13818) pertaining to Radware Ltd. Amended and Restated 2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and in the Registration Statement on FormS-8 (File Number 333-105213) pertaining to the Radware Ltd. 2002 Employee Share Purchase Plan, of our report dated February 2, 2003, with respect to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Radware Ltd., included in its Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2003, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

| Tel - Aviv, Israel | KOST    FORER GABBAY & KASIERER     |   |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| March 16, 2004     | A    Member of Ernst & Young Global |   |

84

----
#### Frank Hester v. The Commissioners of Parks and Boulevards of the City of Detroit.

*Costs*— Condemnation *proceedings*— Detroit *park and boulevard act.*

1. Costs are only recoverable when there is statutory authority awarding them.

2. There is no statutory authority for awarding either witness or attorney fees in condemnation proceedings under Act No. 888, Local Acts of 1889, relating to parks and boulevards in the city of Detroit.

*Mandamus.*

Submitted January 21, 1891.

Denied February *5,*1891.

Relator applied for *mandamus*to compel payment of costs in proceedings relating to widening of boulevard. The facts are stated in the opinion.

*E. T. Wood,*for relator.

*John J. Speed,*for respondents.

McGrath, J.

Proceedings were instituted by respondents, under an act relating to parks and boulevards in the city of Detroit (Local Acts of 1889, p. 607), to widen the boulevard, taking a strip from relator's property. These proceedings were afterwards discontinued, whereupon relator’s costs were taxed at $30.50, including an attorney fee of *$25,*and witness fees. Respondents refuse to pay these costs, and a *mandamus*is prayed to compel the payment.'

Costs are only recoverable when there is statutory authority awarding them. *Booth v. McQueen,*1 Doug. 41; *Jeffery v. Hursh,*58 Mich. *258; Tolford v. Church,*66 Id. *451431. The only' provision relating to costs or fees in the act referred to, under which these proceedings were had, is section 27, which is as follows:

> “Jurors in said proceedings; and all officers who shall render any services in said proceedings, shall be entitled to the same fees which are allowed for like purposes in ordinary cases of opening streets and alleys in said city, commenced in said recorder’s court; and the persons appointed to represent absent or other respondents, as above provided, shall be paid such sum as the court may deem reasonable.”

The act relating to opening streets and alleys in the city of Detroit (Local Acts of 1885, p. 346, § 22) provides for the payment of “ officers’, jurors’, and witnesses’” fees; and the general law for the opening of streets and alleys in cities and villages (How. Stat. p. 1300a, § 17) contains the same provisions as the local act. The general law, however, contains (section 19, as amended in 1889) a separate section providing for the allowance by the court of an attorney fee. Neither the provisions of the local street opening act nor the general law relating to street openings have any application to proceedings had under the park and boulevard act. The presence of the provision in the latter act for payment to persons appointed (by the court) to represent absent or other respondents, and of the separate provision in the general law providing for the payment of attorney fees, make it very clear that attorneys are not included in the term “officers.”

There is therefore no statutory authority for awarding either witness fees or attorney fees in proceedings under this act, and the application must be denied.

The other Justices concurred.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1852 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1852

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin 
   Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the 
 development of an exhibit to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the 
                      birth of Benjamin Franklin.

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

SECTION 1. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN NATIONAL MEMORIAL.

    The Secretary of the Interior may provide a grant to the Franklin 
Institute to--
            (1) rehabilitate the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial 
        (including the Franklin statue) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 
        and
            (2) develop an interpretive exhibit relating to Benjamin 
        Franklin, to be displayed at a museum adjacent to the Benjamin 
        Franklin National Memorial.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry 
out this Act $10,000,000.
    (b) Required Match.--The Secretary of the Interior shall require 
the Franklin Institute to match any amounts provided to the Franklin 
Institute under this Act.

            Passed the Senate October 10, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1852

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin 
   Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the 
 development of an exhibit to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the 
                      birth of Benjamin Franklin.
```
Exhibit 8.1



List of Subsidiaries



|Particulars                                  |  | Country of incorporation |  | 2014 (%) |  | 2013 (%) |  | 2012 (%)
|-------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------ |  | -------- |  | -------- |  | --------
|Sify Software Limited                        |  | India                    |  | -        |  | 100      |  | 100     
|Hermit Projects Private Limited              |  | India                    |  | -        |  | 100      |  | 100     
|Pace Info Com Park Private Limited           |  | India                    |  | 100      |  | 100      |  | 100     
|Sify Technologies (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.      |  | Singapore                |  | 100      |  | 100      |  | 100     
|Sify Technologies North America Corporation* |  | United States            |  | 100      |  | -        |  | -       



*The subsidiary was incorporated on May 7, 2014.
#### 442 Decatur Street, LLC, Appellant, v Spheres Realty, Inc., Also Known as Spheres Realty-Cross Fields Locale, Respondent.

[787 NYS2d 669]

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated November 12, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and vacating its notice of pendency.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff seeks, inter alia, specific performance of a real estate contract dated August 7, 2002, which was executed by the defendant Spheres Realty, Inc., also known as Spheres Realty-Cross Fields Locale, as seller, and the plaintiff, as purchaser. However, the plaintiff, a limited liability company, did not come into existence until September 2002, i.e., one month later, when its articles of organization were filed with the Department of State *(see*Limited Liability Company Law § 203). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff lacked the capacity in August 2002 *536to enter into a contract. At the time of the execution of the contract, the plaintiff was a “purported entity” which cannot “acquire rights by contract or otherwise” *(183 Holding Corp. v 183 Lorraine St. Assoc.,*251 AD2d 386-387 [1998] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Kiamesha Dev. Corp. v Guild Props.,*4 NY2d 378, 389 [1958]; 18 CJS, Corporations § 88). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and vacating the notice of pendency.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
#### Lemonia Kolivas, Respondent, v Maureen D. Kirchoff et al., Appellants, and Emmanuel Giakoumis, Respondent.

[787 NYS2d 392]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Maureen D. Kirchoff and Francis A. Kirchoff appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated July 7, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Summary judgment is a drastic remedy that deprives a litigant of his or her day in court, and it “should only be employed when there is no doubt as to the absence of triable issues” *(Andre v Pomeroy,*35 NY2d 361, 364 [1974]). The function of the court on a motion for summary judgment is not to resolve issues of fact or determine matters of credibility, but merely to determine whether such issues exist *(see Scott v Long Is. Power Auth.,*294 AD2d 348 [2002]; *Anyanwu v Johnson,*276 AD2d 572 [2000]; *Omrami v Socrates,*227 AD2d 459 [1996]; *Rebecchi v Whitmore,*172 AD2d 600 [1991]). Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion of the defendants Maureen D. Kirchoff and Francis A. Kirchoff because the conflicting deposition testimony regarding the facts surrounding the accident raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant Maureen D. Kirchoff contributed to the accident. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.25


                                                    January 24, 2000



Mr. Charles H. Pistor, Jr.
4200 Belclaire
Dallas, Texas 75205

Dear Charles:

                  This will confirm the following agreement relating to the
deferral of, and payment of, your directors' fees and retainers:

                  1. All directors' fees and retainers payable to you in
connection with your service on the boards of directors (including committees of
such boards) of AMR Corporation ("AMR") and American Airlines, Inc. for the
period January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000, will be paid to you on a
deferred basis as set forth below.

                  2. Interest will be accrued on the amounts to be paid on a
deferred basis pursuant to paragraph 1 above, from the date such fees would
otherwise have been paid to the date actually paid, at the prime rate which The
Chase Manhattan Bank (National Association) from time to time charges in New
York for 90-day loans to responsible commercial borrowers, such interest to be
compounded monthly.

                  3. The total amount to be paid on a deferred basis plus the
aggregate amount of interest accrued thereon and to accrue on the portion unpaid
from time to time will be paid to you in a lump sum distribution during the
month of January 2004.

                  4. AMR's obligation to make payments pursuant to paragraph 3
hereof will not be released or modified by reason of your death. In the event of
your death prior to the payments contemplated by paragraph 3 hereof, the amounts
deferred and interest thereon will be paid to Regina Pistor.



<PAGE>   2


                  If the foregoing is satisfactory to you, please indicate by
signing and returning the enclosed copy of this letter.

                                                    Very truly yours,




                                                    Charles D. MarLett
                                                    Corporate Secretary




Accepted and agreed:




--------------------------------
Charles H. Pistor, Jr.





--------------------------------
Date