alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 97 (Thursday, May 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23847-23848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11792]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13463-000]


Hydro Energy Technologies, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit 
Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To 
Intervene, and Competing Applications

May 13, 2009.
    On May 5, 2009, Hydro Energy Technologies, LLC filed an 
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Pleasant Hill Hydroelectric 
Project, to be located on the Clear Fork of Mohican River, in Ashland 
County, Ohio.
    The proposed Pleasant Hill Hydroelectric Project would be located 
at: (1) The existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 775-foot-long, 113-
foot-high Pleasant Hill Dam; and (2) an existing 2,600-acre reservoir 
with a normal water surface elevation of 1,020 feet mean sea level.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) A new powerhouse 
containing a single turbine generating unit with an installed capacity 
of 1.5 megawatts; (2) a new 200-foot-long, 60-inch-diameter penstock; 
(3) a new switchyard; (4) a new 1-mile-long, 25-kilovolt transmission 
line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The Pleasant Hill Project would 
have an estimated average annual generation of 5.4 gigawatt-hours, 
which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Anthony J. Marra Jr., President, Hydro 
Energy Technologies, LLC, 31300 Solon Rd. Suite 12, Solon, OH 44139, 
(440) 498-1000.
    FERC Contact: John Ramer, (202) 502-8969.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://

[[Page 23848]]

www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project 
can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web 
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket 
number (P-13463) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-11792 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
EX-4.13



 





Exhibit 4.13




CERTIFICATE OF TRUST



OF


CITIGROUP CAPITAL XXXI



     This Certificate of Trust is being executed as of November 15, 2007 for the purposes of
organizing a statutory trust pursuant to the Delaware Statutory Trust Act, 12 Del. C. §3801 et seq.
(the “Act”).



     The undersigned, the trustees of Citigroup Capital XXXI, hereby certify as follows:



     1. Name. The name of the statutory trust being formed hereby is “Citigroup Capital XXXI” (the
“Trust”).



     2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust which has its
principal place of business in the State of Delaware are as follows:


The Bank of New York (Delaware)

100 White Clay Center

Route 273

P. O. Box 6995

Newark, DE 19711




     3. Effective. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective immediately upon filing in the
Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.



1









 





Dated: November 15, 2007




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ John Gerspach
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	John Gerspach, as Regular Trustee
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Eric L. Wentzel	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Eric L. Wentzel, as Regular Trustee
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Saul Rosen	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Saul Rosen, as Regular Trustee
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	THE BANK OF NEW YORK (DELAWARE),
	 	 	as Delaware Trustee
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Kristine K. Gullo	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Name: Kristine K. Gullo
	 	 	Title: Vice President
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	CITIGROUP INC.,
	 	 	as Sponsor
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Charles E. Wainhouse	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Name: Charles E. Wainhouse
	 	 	Title: Vice President






2
EXHIBIT 10.2


                     AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO INVESTMENT AGREEMENT

          AMENDMENT NO. 1 (this "Amendment"), dated as of February 28, 2006, to
the Investment Agreement (the "Investment Agreement"), dated as of February 17,
2006, by and between FluoroPharma, Inc. and QuantRx Biomedical Corporation.
Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned
to such terms in the Investment Agreement.

                                    RECITALS:

          WHEREAS, the Company and the Investor have entered into the Investment
Agreement;

          WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with Section 9.07 of the
Investment Agreement, the Company and the Investor wish to amend the Investment
Agreement as set forth in this Amendment;

          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the rights and obligations
contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy of
which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Investor agree as follows:

          Section 1. Amendment to the Agreement. The Investment Agreement is
hereby amended by replacing "February 28, 2006" with "March 15, 2006" in each
place it occurs.

          Section 2. Entire Agreement. This Amendment constitutes the entire
agreement of the Company and the Investor with respect to the subject matter
hereof and supersedes all prior agreements and undertakings, both written and
oral, between the Company and the Investor with respect to the subject matter
hereof. Except as amended by this Amendment, the Investment Agreement shall
continue in full force and effect.

          Section 3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed and delivered
(including by facsimile transmission) in one or more counterparts, and by the
different Parties in separate counterparts, each of which when executed shall be
deemed to be an original but all of which taken together shall constitute one
and the same agreement.

          Section 4. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by, and
construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York applicable to
contracts executed in and to be performed in that State (without regard to
conflicts of law provisions thereof).


<PAGE>


          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Investor have caused this
Amendment to be executed as of the date first written above by their respective
officers thereunto duly authorized.




                                            QUANTRX BIOMEDICAL CORPORATION


                                            By: /s/Walter Witoshkin
                                               ---------------------------------

                                            Title:
                                                   -----------------------------


                                            FLUOROPHARMA, INC.


                                            By: /s/ David Elmaleh
                                               ---------------------------------

                                            Title:
                                                  ------------------------------

                                      -2-
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony DIGGS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-16231

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 19, 2009.

Patrick M. Hunt, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Kathleen M. Williams, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before CARNES, MARCUS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Diggs, through counsel, appeals the district court’s order denying his *89818 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. Diggs’s motion was based on Amendment 706 to the sentencing guidelines, which reduced the base offense levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses. Diggs now concedes that he is ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 706 because he was sentenced as a career offender under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1, but he seeks to preserve his claim that the district court erred for further review.

As Diggs concedes, the district court did not err in denying his motion for sentence reduction because he was sentenced as a career offender, and thus the crack cocaine offense level played no ultimate role in his sentence. *See United States v. Moore,*541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir.2008) (“Where a retroactively applicable guideline amendment reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does not alter the sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence. Here, although Amendment 706 would reduce the base offense levels applicable to the defendants, it would not affect their guideline ranges because they were sentenced as career offenders under § 4B1.L”), *cert, denied, McFadden v. United States,*— U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 965, 173 L.Ed.2d 156 (2009).

AFFIRMED.
#### ROCKETT v. JOHN J. CASALE, Inc., et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Sept. 17, 1947.

Sylvia Miller, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Grant, Clark & Fox, of New York City, for defendants.

HULBERT, District Judge.

Two motions are here presented which will be considered together.

Plaintiff moves, pursuant to Rule 34, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order directing the defendant, John J. Casale, Inc., to produce for inspection and copying, a statement made by Joseph Fisher to the said defendant. The action is one for damages for alleged negligence *576in the operation of a motor truck, operated by Fisher and owned by the defendant, John J. Casale, Inc. The affidavit of plaintiff’s attorney discloses that the truck was hired under a leasing arrangement to the defendant, Marine Tobacco Co., Inc., and that Fisher was in the employ of said defendant.

In opposition to the relief sought, defendant John J. Casale, Inc., contends that since the document sought to be inspected is not their document but that of Fisher who is not a party, the motion should be-denied.' Rule 34, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, is clear that production can be ordered if the thing sought is in the “possession, custody, or control” of a party. It does not appear that the statement in question is not in the possession, custody or control of the objecting defendant and objection on that ground is not well founded. The affidavit in support of the motion discloses- that Fisher in an examination before trial, stated that he did not know of any accident and that he did not see the plaintiff at the time of the alleged accident. He admitted that he was informed that his truck had struck a man. He stated, according to the affidavit, that he went to the office of defendant, John J. Casale, Inc., and made a report which he signed the following day. At the time legal proceedings had not been commenced.

The Court is satisfied that a “showing of good cause” within Rule 34, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, exists and the motion is granted.

Defendants move for an order directing the plaintiff to serve a bill of particulars, pursuant to Rule 12, F.R.C.P. It does not appear to the Court that the defendants are unable to make adequate answer to the complaint. In fact, an answer had been interposed to the original complaint and a supplemental complaint thereafter served does not differ substantially from the original but adds the Marine Tobacco Co., as a party defendant. The items sought to be particularized may be sought after issue joined pursuant to Rule 26 et seq. of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants’ motion is denied. Settle order on notice.
exv10w1



 





Exhibit 10.1




Amendment: cing5899.A.003

To

Purchase Order 3



This Amendment (cing5899.A.003) is effective as of November 1, 2007, between eTelecare Global
Solutions, Inc. (eGS), a Philippines corporation and AT&T Mobility LLC (f/k/a Cingular Wireless) a
Delaware limited liability company (“Buyer”) on behalf of itself and its Affiliates, amends that
certain Purchase Order,




RECITALS




     WHEREAS Buyer and eGS have entered into that certain Call Center Services Statement of Work
dated June 15, 2005 (“SOW”) to provide services to Buyer;



     WHEREAS Buyer and eGS desire to amend the SOW to extend the term of the Agreement;



     FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree to
amend the SOW as follows:




	1.	 	Section 6.1 “Term” of the SOW is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:
	 
	 	 	Section 6.1 “Term” This SOW shall begin on June 15, 2005 and end on January 31, 2008.
	 
	2.	 	The amendments made to the SOW by this Amendment shall be effective as of
November 1, 2007.
	 
	3.	 	Except as amended by cing5899.A.003, and as specifically stated in this
Amendment, the SOW is not modified, revoked or superseded and remains in full
force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby execute this Amendment as of the date first written above.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	AT&T Services, Inc.

on behalf of AT&T Mobility LLC	 	 	 	eTelecare Global Solutions, Inc.	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	/s/ Jeffrey A. Rolsten 	 	 	 	By:	/s/ Benedict
C. Hernandez	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Printed Name:	 	Jeffrey A. Rolsten	 	Printed Name:	 	Benedict
C. Hernandez	 
	 

	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	Title:	 	Exec. Director	 	 	 	Title:	 	SVP - Philippine
Operations	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:

	 	12-4-07
	 	 	 	 	 	Date:	 	12-5-2007
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 





Proprietary Information 

The information contained in this Agreement is not for use or disclosure outside AT&T, Supplier, their affiliated companies

and their third party representatives, except under written Agreement by the contracting Parties.





1
Exhibit 23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We have issued our reports dated April 14, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Books-A-Million, Inc. on Form 10K for the year ended January 29, 2011.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Books-A-Million, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-167134 effective May 27, 2010, File No. 333-167133 effective May 27, 2010; File No. 333-151694 effective June 17, 2008; File No. 333-135719 effective July 12, 2006; File No. 333-126008 effective June 21, 2005; File No. 333-116831 effective June 24, 2004; File No. 333-84822 effective March 22, 2002; File No. 333-34384 effective April 7, 2000;  File No. 333-58619 effective July 7, 1998; File No. 33-86980, effective December 1, 1994; and File No. 33-72812 effective December 10, 1993).





/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP


Atlanta, Georgia


April 14, 2011
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent
to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-83682 and 333-137129 on Form S-8 of our reports dated February 26, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of ManTech
International Corporation, and the effectiveness of ManTech International Corporations internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of ManTech International Corporation for the year ended
December 31, 2009.



|                            
|----------------------------
|/s/    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
|                            
|McLean, Virginia            
|February 26, 2010
[938 NE2d 997, 912 NYS2d 563]

#### Pedro Acosta, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

Decided October 26, 2010

*882APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Alexander J. Wulwick,*New York City, for appellant.

*Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel,*New York City *(Drake*A. *Colley*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to that court for consideration of issues raised but not determined on the appeal to that court. A valid line of reasoning exists based on the record evidence to support the jury verdict finding defendants liable for battery and false arrest *(see generally Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493, 499 [1978]). Thus, it was erroneous to set aside the verdict as a matter of law. On remittal, the Appellate Division must determine whether the jury’s verdict is in accord with the weight of the evidence and, if so, whether the amount of damages awarded by the jury was excessive *(see id.*at 500 and n 4).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum; Judge Smith dissents and votes to affirm for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (72 AD3d 624 [2010]).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.
FEBRUARY 2010 CALENDAR

The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.

#### STATE OF MONTANA Plaintiff, vs. CHARLES ANDREWS, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-08-598 DECISION

On October 13, 2009, the defendant was sentenced to fifteen (15) years in the Montana State Prison, with ten (10) years suspended, for violation of the conditions of a deferred sentence for the offense of Arson, a felony.

On February 4, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Bert Certain. Counsel for the defendant at the District Court level, Paulette Ferguson, also appeared on behalf of the defendant via teleconference. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 4th day of February, 2010.

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
S. Con. Res. 1 Agreed to January 4, 2005

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the two Houses of Congress shall meet in the Hall

of the House of Representatives on Thursday, the sixth day of

January 2005, at 1 o’clock post meridian, pursuant to the requirements of the Constitution and laws relating to the election of

President and Vice President of the United States, and the President of the Senate shall be their Presiding Officer; that two tellers

shall be previously appointed by the President of the Senate on

the part of the Senate and two by the Speaker on the part of

the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they

are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates

and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which

certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon

in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter

‘‘A’’; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence

and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes

as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having

been ascertained and counted in the manner and according to

the rules by law provided, the result of the same shall be delivered

to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce

the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a

sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and
S. Con. Res. 1—2

Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list

of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 20, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 20, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20I0035. TYRONE DONTAVIOUS POSTELL v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2018C52997
The State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 18, 2013

N o. 04

- 13

- 0019 1

- CR

Cesar A. SALCEDO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11

- 1545

- CR

Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the reply brief is GRANTED. Time is

extended to September 2 5 , 2013.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court