alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16562]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13471-000]


FFP Project 61, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application 
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and 
Competing Applications

July 7, 2009.
    On May 22, 2009, FFP Project 61, LLC filed an application for a 
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Point Menoir Hydrokinetic 
Project, to be located on the Mississippi River in West Baton Rouge 
Parish, Louisiana and East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
    The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant 
the permit holder priority to file a license application during the 
permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder 
to perform any land disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands 
or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Point Menoir Hydrokinetic Project consists of: (1) 
1,647 proposed 40 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total 
installed capacity of 65.88 megawatts; (2) a 1.6-mile-long, 69 kilovolt 
transmission line; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The proposed Point 
Menoir Hydrokinetic Project would have an average annual generation of 
289 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Vice President of 
Development, Free Flow Power Corporation, 33 Commercial Street, 
Gloucester, MA 01930; phone: (978) 226-1531.
    FERC Contact: Kim Carter, 202-502-6486.
    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://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project, including a copy of 
the application, 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-13471) in the docket number field to access 
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-16562 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 7, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 129304 & (51) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129304 COA: 257846 Eaton CC: 03-020327-FH RICHARD LEE HASSELBRING, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion fo r immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to a ppeal the August 10, 2005 ord er of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not p ersuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH and K ELLY , JJ., would vacate the stay.

d1003 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.

October 7, 2005

Clerk
Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 1   Filed 03/14/11   Page 1 of 10 PageID: 1

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 1   Filed 03/14/11   Page 2 of 10 PageID: 2

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 1   Filed 03/14/11   Page 3 of 10 PageID: 3

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 1   Filed 03/14/11   Page 4 of 10 PageID: 4

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 1   Filed 03/14/11   Page 5 of 10 PageID: 5

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 1   Filed 03/14/11   Page 6 of 10 PageID: 6

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 1   Filed 03/14/11   Page 7 of 10 PageID: 7

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 1   Filed 03/14/11   Page 8 of 10 PageID: 8

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 1   Filed 03/14/11   Page 9 of 10 PageID: 9

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 1   Filed 03/14/11   Page 10 of 10 PageID: 10
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16227]


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

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

48 CFR Parts 704, 713, 714, 715, 744, and 752

RIN 0412-AA63


Partner Vetting in USAID Acquisitions

AGENCY: United States Agency for International Development.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document makes corrections to the preamble and clause of 
a proposed rule published in the Federal Register of June 26, 2009, 
regarding Partner Vetting in USAID Acquisitions. This correction 
corrects the fax number provided in the ADDRESSES section of the rule 
and a paragraph reference in the definitions section of clause 752.204-
71.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Norling, 202-712-1807.

Corrections

    In proposed rule FR Doc. E9-15012, beginning on page 30494 in the 
issue of June 26, 2009, make the following corrections:
    1. In the ADDRESSES section, on page 30494 in the 2nd column, 
correct the Fax number in the third bullet to read ``Fax: 202-216-
3395''.
    2. In line 2 of the 48 CFR 752.204-71(b) definition of ``Vetting 
Official'', on page 30498 in the 2nd column, correct the paragraph 
reference to read ``paragraph (d) of this clause''.

    Dated: June 26, 2009.
Diane Howard,
Chief, Policy Division, Office of Acquisition and Assistance, U.S. 
Agency for International Development.
[FR Doc. E9-16227 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Exhibit 10.13



 Exhibit 10.13 
 AMENDMENT TO HUMAN RESOURCES AND INTERNAL 
 COMMUNICATIONS
TRANSITION SERVICES AGREEMENT 
 This AMENDMENT (“Amendment”) to the HUMAN RESOURCES AND INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS TRANSITION
SERVICES AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) dated November 19, 2011, by and between MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation (“MII”), and MARRIOTT VACATIONS WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (“MVWC”)
is made and entered into on October 26, 2012. Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement. 
 WHEREAS, Section 1 of the Agreement provides, in part, that MVWC may terminate the Agreement for any reason or no reason upon one hundred twenty (120) days notice to MII. 

WHEREAS, Client is currently negotiating a contract for the provision of outsourcing services, including human resources services, with ADP, Inc., and
anticipates that negotiations, contract execution, testing and implementation will proceed over the next 90 to 120 days. 
 WHEREAS, Client
desires to ensure that human resources transition services be delivered in a timely and accurate manner throughout the period of transition from Service Provider to ADP. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements, provisions and covenants contained in this Amendment, Service Provider and Client hereby agree that the Agreement be, and hereby is, amended as
follows: 
  

	1.	Client may give the notice of termination specified in Section 1 subject to an extension of the termination date upon further notice by Client on or before
November 16, 2012, to the end of the first, second, third or fourth Marriott payroll quarter in 2013; provided that, (i) Client maintains its current platform with AonHewitt for PeopleSoft HR and employee benefits administration for the
period Services are performed under this amendment; (ii) any subsequent notification by Client shall be subject to the notice period in Section 1; and provided that (iii) any Services performed after the fourth payroll quarter in 2012
shall exclude the following: 

  

	 	•	 	 Talent Acquisition Services 


  

	 	•	 	 Merit and Bonus Processing 


  

	 	•	 	 Commissions Processing 










	2.	Except as otherwise provided in paragraph 1 above, MII and MVWC mutually agree that this Amendment does not constitute a waiver of any of their rights under the
Agreement. 

  

	3.	Except as specifically modified by this Amendment, all provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed by their respective authorized officers as of the day and year
first written above. 
  

					
	MARRIOTT VACATIONS WORLDWIDE CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Michael E. Yonker

		 	Name:	 	 Michael E. Yonker

		 	Title:	 	 Executive Vice President &

		 		 	 Chief Executive Human Resources Officer

	
	MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ David A. Rodriguez

		 	Name:	 	 David A. Rodriguez

		 	Title:	 	 Executive Vice President &

		 		 	 Chief Executive Human Resources Officer
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





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Zevotek, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Robert Babkie, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





Dated:  May
17, 2010




/s/
      Robert BabkieRobert
      Babkie, President, Chief Executive Officer,
              Chief
      Financial Officer and Director
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A1163. TIMOTHY WOODARD v. DARRELL DIX.

Prisoner Timothy Woodward petitioned the Spalding County Superior Court

for permission to file a habeas corpus petition, naming Sheriff Darrell Dix as the

defendant. Although the superior court granted the petition, the superior court

subsequently granted Dix’s motion to dismiss. Woodard filed this appeal from the

trial court’s dismissal order.

Under our Constitution, the Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction

over all habeas corpus cases. See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (4).

Because Woodard seeks to appeal the dismissal of a habeas action, it appears

jurisdiction may lie in the Supreme Court. As the Supreme Court has the ultimate

responsibility for determining appellate jurisdiction, see Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis

& Med. Clinic, 267 Ga. 177, 178 (476 SE2d 587) (1996), this application is hereby

TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

April 12, 2022

04/12/2022
#### Ryan Calder et al., Appellants, v Gerald H. Cofta, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 596]

On August 21, 2006, the parties entered into a stipulation requiring the infant plaintiff to appear for an independent medical examination within 45 days. The stipulation was incorporated by reference into a conditional order of preclusion dated August 21, 2006, which provided that “the failure of a party to comply with said stipulation will result in that party being precluded from offering evidence at trial with respect to those items of discovery outlined in the stipulation that have not been provided.” Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the infant plaintiffs willful refusal to permit the defendant’s examining physician, inter alia, to conduct a meaningful physical examination of his nose and mouth constituted a failure to comply with the stipulation *(see Allen v State of New York,*228 AD2d 1001 [1996]). Upon the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the terms of the stipulation, the conditional order of preclusion became absolute *(see Koslosky v Khorramian,*31 AD3d 716 [2006]; *Echevarria v Pathmark Stores, Inc.,*7 AD3d 750, 751 [2004]; *Hall v Penas,*5 AD3d 549 [2004]). To be relieved of the adverse impact of the conditional order, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to comply *485with the stipulation and the existence of a meritorious cause of action *(see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Hertz Corp.,*43 AD3d 907, 908 [2007]; *Matter of Denton v City of Mount Vernon,*30 AD3d 600 [2006]; *Echevarria v Pathmark Stores, Inc., 1*AD3d at 751). The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to comply with the stipulation *(see Burger v Bladt,*112 AD2d 127 [1985]; *Goldman v Linkoff,*45 AD2d 709 [1974]). Furthermore, they failed to submit any proof regarding the issue of liability. Since the order of preclusion prevented the plaintiffs from making out a prima facie case with respect to whether the injured plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint *(see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Hertz Corp.,*43 AD3d at 908; *Rahman v MacDonald,*17 AD3d 438, 439 [2005]; *Contarino v North Shore Univ. Hosp. at Glen Cove,*13 AD3d 571, 572 [2004]; *cf. Anderson v RC Dolner, Inc.,*43 AD3d 837 [2007]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Florio, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 30215(U) (2007).]
[Doc. No. 26]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JENNIFER L. KASILAG, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

HARTFORD INVESTMENT FINANCIAL

SERVICES, LLC,

 Defendant.

Civil No. 11-1083 (RMB/AMD)

ORDER

THIS MATTER having been brought before the Court by Moshe

Maimon, Esquire, of Levy, Phillips & Konigsberg, LLP, counsel for

plaintiffs, for an Order allowing Melissa L. Stewart, Esquire, to

appear and participate pro hac vice; and the Court having

considered the moving papers; and there being no opposition to this

application; and for good cause shown pursuant to Local Rule

101.1(c), United States District Court for the District of New

Jersey;

IT IS this 12th day of September 2011, hereby

ORDERED that Melissa L. Stewart, Esquire, a member of the

Bar of the State of New York, be permitted to appear pro hac vice

in the above-captioned matter in the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey pursuant to Local Rule 101.1(c);

provided, however, that all pleadings, briefs and other papers

filed with the Court shall be signed by Moshe Maimon, Esquire, or

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 30 Filed 09/12/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 1908
another attorney associated with Levy, Philips & Konigsberg, LLP,

who is a member in good standing with the Bar of the Supreme Court

of New Jersey and the Bar of this Court, who shall be held

responsible for said papers and for the conduct of the case, and

who shall be present before the Court during all phases of this

proceeding, unless expressly excused by the Court, as well as be

held responsible for the conduct of the attorney admitted pro hac

vice pursuant to this Order; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to L. CIV. R. 101.1(c)(2), Melissa

L. Stewart, Esquire, shall pay the annual fee to the New Jersey

Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection in accordance with New Jersey

Court Rule 1:28-2 within twenty (20) days from the date of the

entry of this Order, enclosing with payment a completed Form PHV-8;

and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to L. CIV. R. 101.1(c)(3), Melissa

L. Stewart, Esquire, shall make a payment of $150.00, payable to

the Clerk, United States District Court; and it is further

ORDERED that Melissa L. Stewart, Esquire, shall be bound

by the General and Admiralty Rules of the United States District

Court for the District of New Jersey, including but not limited to

the provisions of Local Rule 103.1, Judicial Ethics and

Professional Responsibility, and Local Rule 104.1, Discipline of

Attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to L. CIV. R. 101.1(c)(4), Melissa

2

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 30 Filed 09/12/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 1909
L. Stewart, Esquire, shall be deemed to have agreed to take no fee

in any tort case in excess of the New Jersey Court Contingency Fee

Rule, Rule 1:21-7, as amended.

s/ Ann Marie Donio 

ANN MARIE DONIO

United States Magistrate Judge 

cc: Hon. Renée Marie Bumb

3

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 30 Filed 09/12/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 1910
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Oceanaut, a Marshall Islands corporation (the ‘‘Company’’), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the ‘‘Form 10-Q’’) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

OCEANAUT, INC.Date: May 14, 2008


By:


/s/ Gabriel PanayotidesGabriel Panayotides
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)OCEANAUT, INC.Date: May 14, 2008


By:


/s/ Eleftherios A. PapatrifonEleftherios A. Papatrifon
Chief Financial Officer,
Chief Accounting Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ALFREDO CABRERA-ZETINA, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 11-6237 

(D.C. No. 5:10-CR-00360-D-1) 

(W.D. Okla.)

 

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Alfredo Cabrera-Zetina pled guilty to one count of unlawful reentry into the 

United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues on appeal that his 

above-guidelines sentence of 84-months imprisonment is substantively 

unreasonable.1

 We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

and we affirm. 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

1

 The guideline range was 33 to 41 months imprisonment. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

April 18, 2012

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

“[S]ubstantive reasonableness addresses whether the length of the sentence is 

reasonable given all the circumstances of the case in light of the factors set forth in 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v. Huckins, 529 F.3d 1312, 1317 (10th Cir. 

2008) (quotation omitted). “[W]e review the reasonableness of sentencing decisions, 

whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range, under a 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. (quotation and brackets omitted). “A 

district court abuses its discretion when it renders a judgment that is arbitrary, 

capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable.” Id. (quotation omitted). 

Mr. Cabrera-Zetina has been deported to Mexico five times. He has fourteen 

criminal convictions in the United States, including a felony drug offense and two 

felony convictions for assault with a dangerous weapon. 

We have examined the record and considered the parties’ briefs.2

 The district 

court considered all of the relevant factors under § 3553(a) and more than adequately 

explained the reasons for imposing an above-guidelines sentence. 

Mr. Cabrera-Zetina’s arguments that the court somehow abused its discretion are 

without merit. 

 We AFFIRM the district court’s sentence. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Bobby R. Baldock 

 Circuit Judge 

 

2

 We have little doubt as to why Mr. Cabrera-Zetina did not request oral 

argument.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0 3 78 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. JOHN THURLOW MOSBY,

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 May 4 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 30 2020

03/30/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0378
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-145356 on Form S-1,and Registration Statement No. 333-148989 on Form S-8, of our report dated March 10, 2008, relatingto the financial statements of Nanosphere Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion andincludes an explanatory paragraph which indicates that Nanosphere, Inc. is in the developmentstage) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Nanosphere, Inc. for the year ended December31, 2007./s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPChicago, Illinois
Case 3:11-mj-02518-DEA   Document 8   Filed 03/03/11   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 15

Case 3:11-mj-02518-DEA   Document 8   Filed 03/03/11   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 16
-vs- ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIALSECURITY.

Defendant.

Upon reading the affidavit of Plaintiffrequesting that he be permitted to proceed

informa pauperis:

IT IS on this q dayof ,2011;

ORDERED that Plaintiff be permitted to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs or

security therefor, in accordance with Section 1915 (a), Title 28, United States Code and it is

further

ORDERED that the Clerk shall file the Complaint without prepayment ofthe filing fee.

ANLEY R. CHE LER, USDJ,