alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### 883

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN G- G MAWW A-Qaau



### m..iT*T. x0ulll.n Deputy Commlsdoner 

### Dopartaent

of BaoklnQ Atretla, Tew 

### Dear Sir:

er the proriaians eal estate or a IIbeaomer burdenmme lation, uith eeioner and under Mf, map mlgehe real estate in

ten dovm. , and the trustee or lfloate~ or ahareo, be, to the atookholden~.io ppbgorvalue 

### of theirstook in the amook 1lab~lit.p

is io swh owe writ- "Xi an asrooiatloa, aotlng pursuant to the pro- ~lrions or this se&ion, afth the approvalof 

### and under Aleo establishedby the Comnieeloner, does segregate the aaseta and oomsy the real 

### eateteto

### 884

ta*lonI,

uul*e~Seehn%,cral

*orda are 

### uo*dr far

it olaarlf l 

### ppaaretrw the ooatbxt that 

### tlm7w6m not intended te be m4 Uad~etoQe." see ileoKinusYe umk (0.A.) 999 8r w* 19% SqBx sootloa 

### 1 Qi Artiole10, ReMeel 8$titBtatutst

of 19ea.

### 885

KS. Jr 1. tsasrlllla, Fag* 8

Tm 

### upante or out bit frum ethua,, or from 

### the -1 

### ma oouala-bohysto set apart;to sao109.&te aaaltI4o."
"true A @ozNeibtbnrf. aal olesma~ doibtltion of the tm 

### la glYM baluwx *A tztwt la up ,aqultabla obllptlon, 

### bidding a 

### pera~n‘bho la oall& l truates) 

### to deal with ps&- putt o~arwhhhhehu sontrek (whioh $e 

### oallodthr trPrfpEOpm?ty) fOr.thO 

### bU@fit Of pS%?SOiI.# 

### (rhoam uallo&theb*n&alarluor o*etrrlr puotsuete) f& whum Lo moJ ?lialaalr bo on., and any one 

### of whom ma7 untoru the 

### ~obllgatlea.* 8. UmwJhlu, Trusts (8th td.)



### Xt is our O~%XI&~WI that 

### the aaaoafatloa 

### has performed 

### ~~a~tatuturyilutf

Mmt At 

### son*eya

the 

### burdensome

aaaet Into

. At 

### that point tha lntereat 0r~theaa5maiatloa

6eaaea. and th. trPIta0 *rrtablitb+b %8 

### l olaly fOF the ban&it of the mb*'pI of ohr u8QoisSiea in taalraapaolty aa indltldwAa. If a acratra-poaltlua ma 8bopte4 it 

### uould servo 

### to defeatthe 

### lx&tatof the LCrgiclatgre 8gd nullify

the 

### oontempl8t&%~bu+e~lta **t br**  **She wriaotmeut**  **of** 

### this statutory 

### pror%sion.dlclarlp & ale 8C9la48,

rupm, w oeneeiretl and designed 

### to &eon"pb pllsh l 

### eoq~lete

~4 t&Ml acrennro of the **bardeuamo** 

### rml eatetaaawte trim tk4 other arecrta **or** 

### ein ae6oaimtton.The L Y utara intwdad an anre6triotad "6 T egationw

i To aeoompl ah tb.b pwpos~, 

### the ldea of the lfp~ datfan tnut should f

**R**wr. 7. T* mKllllB, Fog0 4 

### 886

ba BleaawoiatM tim any :a08 

### abi telatlonsblp’to

the ass* l iatba ia thet the Zattu hm any 

### l qtit8blo or logel interut 

### In thotwt property,.forlt ha 

### 80110~The lndlvldual orrabera dlaplroe the 

### auooiatMn l8 that ruprat.

APPROVEDJLJN 14, 1940 jiLALA&w ATTORNEY GENEXAL 03' TEXAS

**COMMIT-EC**
9648.

#### Kimball Company *v.*Rogers.

Decided October 22, 1918.

Distraint; from city court of Statesboro—Judge Proctor. February *28,*1918.

*F. B. Hunter, J. J. E. Anderson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Fred T. Lanier,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

1. A landlord may distrain for rent as soon as it is due, *or before it is due if the tenant is seeking to remove his goods from the premises.*Civil Code (1910), § 3700. Under this code section and the facts of the instant ease, the verdict was not contrary to law be- . cause it included some rent not due until after the issuance of the distress warrant.

2. Three times has the plaintiff in the lower court obtained 'a verdict in his favor, and twice has this court granted the defendant a new trial. 17 *Ga. App.*562 (87 S. E. 848); 20 *Ga. App.*350 (93 S. E. 32). The defects in the plaintiff’s case, pointed out in those decisions, were remedied upon the trial now under review. No reversible error appears to have been committed on the last trial, and the verdict was supported by the evidence and was approved by the trial judge.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 10.12









December
16, 2008




Memorandum




To:
            Mr.
      Gary RomigVice
      PresidentFrom:
            Curtis
      Garner, CFORe:
            Otelco
      Employment Agreement and IRS Section 409A
  Compliance




Dear
Gary:




In order
to comply with recent changes to the final Treasury Regulations issued under
Internal Revenue Code Section 409A, your employment agreement must be amended by
December 31, 2008. By amending the agreement as described below, any
severance payments under the agreement will be exempt from the 409A deferred
compensation rules. In order to avoid the application of these rules, your
agreement must be amended to specifically state that any severance to be paid
must be paid no later than March 15 of the year following your termination.
Currently, the agreement does not specify that the amounts will be paid within a
certain time period. By making this change, your agreement will comply with the
rules under 409A that make it exempt from their application. I have attached a
copy of your current agreement for your reference. Failure to amend the
agreement by December 31, 2008, to be exempt from 409A, could result in the
amounts being subject to a 20% penalty tax.




Please
sign and return to me by December 31, 2008, this letter evidencing your
agreement with the following amendment to your employment
agreement:




Section
5(a)(iii) is amended to read as follows: “The Company shall pay to the Employee
a lump sum in the amount of one-half (1/2) of his Annual Base Salary within six
(6) months following termination but not later than March 14 of the calendar
year following termination; and”


Otelco
      Inc./s/
      Curtis L. GarnerCurtis
      L. Garner, Chief Financial
Officer




I hereby
agree to the above amendment to my employment agreement.


/s/
      Gary B. Romig
            
            December
      18, 2008Gary
      B. Romig
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

### **SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

### ** **

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mrs. Fields FamousBrands, LLC (the “Company”) for the year ended December 29, 2007, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report”),the undersigned, as Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 

 
| /s/ Steven K. Passey      |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Steven  K. Passey         |   |
| Chief  Accounting Officer |   |
| March 28, 2008       |   |

 

Thiswritten statement accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0453

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

SCOTT KELLY WALSH,

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 21, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 14 2021

12/14/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0453
_______________________________________ __ 

### ________________________________

________________________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan


### September 11, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, 

### 136975 & (61) J ustices 

### 136976

In Re Peter Martin Wege Trust

SUSAN WEGE CARTER, Petitioner-Appellee, SC: 136975-6 vs CoA: 274256, 274850 Kent Probate: 02-173246-TT FIFTH THIRD BANK, Respondent-Appellant.

On order of the Chief Justice, a s tipulation signed by th e attorneys for the parties agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered and, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the applicati on for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
September 11, 2008
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1164

BRICIA ROSLYN PINI,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WORKERS COMPENSATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; 

STAYBRIGHT ELECTRIC OF COLORADO, INC.; OLD REPUBLIC 

INSURANCE COMPANY; BASSETT GALLAGHER SERVICES; 

VANDEVERTER BLACK LLP; DR. DHRUV BIPIN PATEDER,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01478-LMB-MSN)

Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 25, 2018

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bricia Roslyn Pini, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bricia Roslyn Pini appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her civil 

complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by 

the district court. Pini v. Workers Comp., No. 1:17-cv-01478-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va. 

Jan. 16, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Kelli Mars","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/kelli-l-marsnasa-gov\/","title":"Dec. 27, 1968: Apollo 8 Returns from the Moon","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Q4nDBeDoSF\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/dec-27-1968-apollo-8-returns-from-the-moon\/\">Dec. 27, 1968: Apollo 8 Returns from the Moon<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/dec-27-1968-apollo-8-returns-from-the-moon\/embed\/#?secret=Q4nDBeDoSF\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Dec. 27, 1968: Apollo 8 Returns from the Moon” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Q4nDBeDoSF\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/S68-56532\/S68-56532~large.jpg?w=600&h=1338&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1338}
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 10, 2014

NO. 03-14-00061-CR

William Colvin, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 390TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial. Having reviewed the 

record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the Court 

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay 

costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
{"id":2718,"count":43,"description":"","link":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/project-mercury\/","name":"Project Mercury","slug":"project-mercury","taxonomy":"category","parent":2655,"meta":{"redirect":"","media-tag":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories\/2718"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/taxonomies\/category"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories\/2655"}],"wp:post_type":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts?categories=2718"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/hdsnav?categories=2718"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topic?categories=2718"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/gallery?categories=2718"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/reference?categories=2718"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/mission?categories=2718"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/feature?categories=2718"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/press-release?categories=2718"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/stem-content?categories=2718"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/people?categories=2718"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/event?categories=2718"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/image-article?categories=2718"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/nasa-blog?categories=2718"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages?categories=2718"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/migration?categories=2718"},{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/podcast?categories=2718"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE MARTIN LIMON-ROBLES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-71175

Agency No. A035-825-304

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Jose Martin Limon-Robles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252,

and we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

FILED

MAR 28 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 06-71175

The agency determined that Limon-Robles was removable under the

aggravated felony ground of deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), based on

his 1987 conviction for violating Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-1405, 1401,

3821, 1001, 604.01, 702, 801 and 812. Subsequent to the agency’s decision in this

case, we held in Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder, Nos. 03-73648, 04-35048, 2010 WL

5174979 (9th Cir. Dec. 22, 2010), that 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) does not apply

to convictions that occurred prior to November 18, 1988. We therefore grant the

petition for review and remand to the agency in light of Ledezma-Galicia. 

In light of our disposition, we need not address Limon-Robles’ remaining

contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 

BYBEE, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgement:

I reluctantly concur in the judgment. I continue to believe that LedezmaGalicia was wrongly decided. See Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder, ____ F.3d ___ (9th

Cir. Dec. 22, 2010) (Bybee, J., dissenting).
#### WHYETT VAN HORN AND MILDRED H. VAN HORN, HIS WIFE, RESPONDENTS, v. HANNAH BURGI AND WILLIAM BENZ, APPELLANTS.

Submitted October 2, 1945

Decided October 31, 1945.

Before Justices Case, Bobine and Perskie.

For the appellants, *Frank Pascar ella.*

For the respondents, *Charles W. Weleck.*

*372The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

This case grows out of the Emergency Price Control Act, 50 *U. S. O. A. App.,*§ 925 (e). The plaintiffs below, under an agreed state of the case, rented property from the defendants. The rent paid was $45 a month, while the legal rent was $35 a month. There were two counts: one to recover the $50 a month fixed by the statute. A count also sought to recover the excess rent paid.

The plaintiffs below entered a voluntary nonsuit as to this latter claim. It was moved while the District Court Judge was awaiting briefs and a decision had not been reached. The case was tried without a jury.

We think if the motion was granted costs should have been imposed. The motion was made without notice, a somewhat doubtful procedure. The defendants were not harmed by the occurrence.

The District Court had jurisdiction to retain the action under the federal statute for the $50 fixed by law for the overpayment or charge. *Beasley*v. *Gottlieb,*131 *N. J. L.*117; *Carmelly*v. *Hanson,*133 *Id.*180.

1. The nonsuit cured any difficulty in too large a demand.

2. The case comes before us upon an agreed state of the case, so we cannot tell whether the court received improper evidence as to the price ceiling. If so, the mistake was cured by the agreement of the parties as to the rent charged and the legal rent which should have been charged.

3. The nonsuit should have been granted in the action mentioned. If granted, on the defendants’ motion it would have carried costs. The only mistake was in permitting an *ex paHe*application for a voluntary nonsuit. An allowance of costs will cure this error.

4. The plaintiffs, in other respects, were entitled to a judgment.

The case comes to us without printing. The briefs do not comply with the rules as to originals. Chief Justice Beasley said in *Gregory*v. *Wilson,*36 *N. J. L.*315 (at *p.*323): “Other cases having the same bearing might be cited, but in these days, when legal knowledge is. so dearly acquired, and legal learning is so cheaply displayed, a voluminous citation *373of authorities is apt to look like a petit larceny on the digests.”

We think it unnecessary to examine the voluminous cases cited by counsel except to say that most of them are not applicable.

This ease is remanded to the District Court for action not inconsistent with this opinion, but without costs here to either side.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 65650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26259]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Docket No. ER15-230-000]

GP Renewables & Trading, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
GP Renewables & Trading, 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 November 19, 2014.
    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 
5 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 electronic 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 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
[email protected]. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: October 30, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26259 Filed 11-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```