alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 41948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18718]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-2337-000]


Shoreham Solar Commons Holdings 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 
Shoreham Solar Commons Holdings 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 September 18, 2017.
    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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dd9b988f9e92b3b1b4b3b88ea8adadb2afa99dbbb8afbef3bab2ab"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c98f8c9b8a86a7a5a0a7ac9abcb9b9a6bbbd89afacbbaae7aea6bf">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 29, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18718 Filed 9-1-17; 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>
<PAGE>



Exhibit 11.0 -  Computation of Earnings per Share

The following represents the computation of earnings per share reflecting the
assumption that the granted shares under the option and warrants plan which
would be dilutive will be exercised.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                                          Three Months Ended
                                                                                               March 31,
                                                                                        2002              2001
                                                                                    --------------    --------------
<S>                                                                                 <C>               <C>


Net earnings                                                                             $787,321          $457,458
Less:  Compensation  expense  relating  to  assumed  conversion  of  warrants  and
options, net of tax                                                                             -          (92,367)
                                                                                    --------------    --------------

Adjusted net earnings for computation                                                    $787,321          $365,091
                                                                                    ==============    ==============


Weighted average common shares outstanding                                             12,265,250        12,165,250

Common share equivalents relating to stock options and warrants                           131,641           525,167
                                                                                    --------------    --------------

Adjusted common and common equivalent shares for computation                           12,396,891        12,690,417
                                                                                    ==============    ==============

Net earnings per share:

      Basic                                                                                 $0.06             $0.04

      Diluted                                                                               $0.06             $0.03

</TABLE>

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the statements.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

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 the direction of the Court.

October 5, 2016

s0928 

# Order

Clerk October 5, 2016

151620

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151620

COA: 325980

Emmet CC: 13

- 003787

- FH

JEFFREY BERNARD PRATER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of December 22, 2015, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer

the application for leave to appeal the March 24, 2015 order of the Court of Appeals. On

order of the Court, the answer having been received and the prosecutor having conceded

guidelines scoring error, the application for leave to appeal is again considered. Pursuant

to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appe al, we VACATE the sentences of

the Emmet Circuit Court, and we REMAND this case to the trial court for resentencing.

The trial court erred in assigning points for Offense Variables 12 and 13, MCL 777.42

and MCL 777.43, respectively, which changed the defe ndant’s guidelines range. People

v Francisco , 474 Mich 82 (2006). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED,

because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed

by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Hospital Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Rex
T. Clevenger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Rex T. Clevenger   
|Rex T. Clevenger       
|Senior Vice President &
|Chief Financial Officer
|May 13, 2005
Order entered September 18, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00869
- CR ALEXIA REYES, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Jud icial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16
- 33196
- R



### O RDER On September 17, 2018, court reporter Anne Meredith filed the supplemental reporter’s
record of the April 25, 2018 revocation hearing

. We GRANT appellant’s September 13, 20 18 motion for extension of time to file her
brief and ORDER appellant’s brief due on or before October 17, 2018.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the
Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 2.
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Form 10-Q.
 Dated: November 10, 2008
    /s/ Raymond J. MerkRaymond J. MerkChief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

**Annual Certification**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Avianca Holdings S.A. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 of the Company fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: April 29, 2016 

 

Section 906 CEO Certification
Exhibit 32.2


        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND
         18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the filing of Zunicom, Inc. and Subsidiary (the
"Company") Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"),I, John C. Rudy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act and 18 U.S.C. (SS) 1350, as
enacted 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 Act of 1934;
                      and

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


/s/ John C. Rudy
----------------------
John C. Rudy
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer

August 14, 2010



























                                Exhibit 32.2 - 1
#### In the Matter of Demetrios PAPADAKIS, Contempt Proceedings Under Title 28, United States Code, § 1826(a).

No. M 11-188(WK).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

June 11, 1985.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, U.S. Atty., S.D. N.Y., New York City, for government.

Martin L. Schmulker, New York City, for Demetrios Papadakis; Lawrence Mark Stern, New York City, of counsel.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

WHITMAN KNAPP, District Judge.

Demetrios Papadakis applies to be released from the civil confinement imposed upon him on December 12, 1984 when he failed to answer questions posed to him by a grand jury.

There would appear to be little question that if I should, in the exercise of my discretion, deny the application, such exercise of discretion would be upheld on appeal. ' *Simkin v. United States*(2d Cir. 1983) 715 F.2d 34, 38. However, the *Simkin*case unambiguously commands me to make “a conscientious effort to determine whether there remains a realistic possibility that continued confinement might cause the contemnor to testify.” 715 F.2d at 37. I am quite satisfied that defendant’s religious protestations are a sham. However, I am equally satisfied that he spoke the truth when he told me that he would stay in jail as long as I deemed necessary, but would in no event respond to the government’s demand that he testify. His motives are clearly ignoble (the desire ultimately to obtain the fruits of his friends’ criminal activity), but that is beside the point. I cannot conscientiously find that there is any realistic possibility that further confinement will induce testimony. Under the command of *Simkin*I must order his release. In this connection it is certainly not irrelevant that on a prior occasion he accepted ten years of imprisonment rather than turn informer for the government.

SO ORDERED.
[929 NYS2d 830]

#### New Millennium Psychological Services, P.C., as Assignee of Christine Waters, Appellant, v Unitrin Advantage Insurance Company, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

July 7, 2011

*70APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Law Office of Alden Banniettis,*Brooklyn *(Jeff Henle of*counsel), for appellant. *Güilo & Associates, LLP,*Brooklyn *(Cristina Carollo*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court entered January 8, 2010 as granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing plaintiffs claim for services rendered on October 30, 2007 and November 13, 2007, in the total sum of $1,026.51. A judgment dismissing that claim was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken *(see*CPLR 5501 [c]).

Plaintiff argues that the “affidavit” of its psychologist, submitted in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. However, the “affidavit,” which contained a notary public’s stamp and signature, bore no caption and contained no attestation that the psychologist was duly sworn or that he had appeared before the notary public *(cf. Furtow v Jenstro Enters., Inc.,*75 AD3d 494 [2010]; *Collins v AA Truck Renting Corp.,*209 AD2d 363 [1994]). While there is no specific form of oath required in New York *(see*General Construction Law § 36), an oath is to be “calculated to awaken the conscience and impress the mind of the person taking it in accordance with his [or her] religious or ethical beliefs” (CPLR 2309 [b]). We find that inasmuch as the omissions in plaintiffs submission constituted more than a mere defect in form, plaintiffs “affidavit” failed to meet the requirements of CPLR 2309 (b).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Steinhardt, J.P, Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
#### Reed *v.*Atlantic & P. R. Co.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

August 26, 1884.)

Decision op Court op Co-ordinate Jurisdiction—Atlantic & Pacific Railway Company—Rioiit to Dividends.

As it has been decided by a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, in an action brought by the Pacific Railroad (of Missouri) to recover, among other things, the dividends agreed to be paid to its stockholders by the defendant in the lease between the two corporations, that the right of action for tho dividends is in tho corporation and not in the individual stockholders, this court, in a suit upon the same lease, brought by one of the stockholders to recover part oí tho same dividends, follows that decision, and judgment for defendant is ordered.

At Law.

*E. L. Andrews,*for plaintiff.

*Geo. Zabriskie*and *John E. Burrill,*for defendant.

Wallace, J.

It has been decided by a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, in an action brought by tho Pacific Railroad (of Missouri) to recover, among other things, the dividends agreed to he paid to its stockholders by the defendant in the lease between the two corporations, that the right of action for 'the dividends is in the corporation and not in the individual stockholders. It would ho unseemly for this *284court, in a suit upon the same lease brought by one of the stockholders to recover part of the same dividends, to hold the contrary. Such a decision might result in two judgments against the defendant for the same dividends. Under such circumstances, as was well said in *Goodyear Dental Vulcanite*Co. v. Willis, 1 Ban. & A. 573: “Every suggestion of propriety and fit public action demands” that the decision made “be followed until modified by the appellate court.’’

Judgment is ordered for defendant.
#### Sandra S. VANDIVER *v.*Ronald BANKS

97-272

962 S.W.2d 349

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 19, 1998 

*Cearley Law Firm, P.A.,*by: *Robert M. Cearley,*for appellant.

*Gruber Law firm,*by: *Wayne A. Gruber,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant petitions for rehearing and requests that we undertake to award attorney’s fees, expenses, costs, and prejudgment interest in this cause. However, in her opening brief, appellant previously asked that we direct the chancery court to enter judgment against appellee, and to award a reasonable attorney’s fee and the costs of this action beginning in April of 1990. Because this case is being remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion, we believe the making of such awards should be decided and made by the trial court on remand. Thus, we issue this per curiam directing the trial court to decide and award appropriate prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees, and costs in accordance with Arkansas law.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 169 (Friday, September 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41680-41681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18581]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control


Notice of OFAC Sanctions Action

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of one person that has been 
placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons 
List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal 
criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject 
to U.S. jurisdiction of this person are blocked, and U.S. persons are 
generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for effective date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; 
Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-
622-2490;

[[Page 41681]]

Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant 
Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel. 202-622-4855; or the Department 
of the Treasury's Office of the General Counsel: Office of the Chief 
Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), tel.: 202-622-2410.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability

    The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and 
additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available 
on OFAC's Web site (www.treasury.gov/ofac).

Notice of OFAC Action

    On August 29, 2017, OFAC determined that the property and interests 
in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following person are 
blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.

Individual

    AL-MANSUR, Salim Mustafa Muhammad (a.k.a. MANSUR AL-IFRI, Salim 
Mustafa Muhammad; a.k.a. MANSUR, Salim; a.k.a. MUSTAFA, Salim 
Mansur; a.k.a. ``AL-IFRI, Saleem''; a.k.a. ``AL-SHAKLAR, Hajji 
Salim''), Mersin, Turkey; Istanbul, Turkey; Adana, Turkey; DOB 1959; 
nationality Iraq; Gender Male (individual) [SDGT] (Linked To: 
ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT).

    Designated pursuant to section 1(c) of Executive Order 13224 of 
September 23, 2001, ``Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions 
With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism'' 
(E.O. 13224) for acting for or on behalf of ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND 
THE LEVANT, a person determined to be subject to E.O. 13224.

    Dated: August 29, 2017.
John E. Smith,
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
[FR Doc. 2017-18581 Filed 8-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
EXHIBIT 21


                                  SUBSIDIARIES



                                          Jurisdiction of       Percentage Owned
Subsidiaries                               Incorporation          By Registrant

DCA Medical Services, Inc.                   Florida                   100%
Dialysis Medical, Inc.*                      Florida                   100%
Dialysis Services of Florida, Inc.-
                  Fort Walton Beach*         Florida                   100%
Dialysis Services of NJ, Inc.-
                  Manahawkin                 New Jersey                 80%
Dialysis Services of NJ, Inc. -
                  Toms River*                New Jersey                 80%
Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania, Inc.-
                  Carlisle                   Pennsylvania              100%
Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania, Inc.-
                  Chambersburg               Pennsylvania              100%
Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania, Inc.-
                  Lemoyne                    Pennsylvania              100%
Dialysis Services of Pennsylvania, Inc.-
                  Wellsboro                  Pennsylvania              100%
Renal Services of Pa., Inc.*                 Pennsylvania              100%


* inactive.