alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19160]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-2381-000]


Scott-II Solar 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 
Scott-II Solar 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 25, 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#9ddbd8cfded2f3f1f4f3f8cee8ededf2efe9ddfbf8effeb3faf2eb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="561013041519383a3f383305232626392422163033243578313920">[email protected]</span></a> or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, 
call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: September 5, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19160 Filed 9-8-17; 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>
NO. 07-04-0584-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	FEBRUARY 11, 2005

	______________________________

	DEONDRICK T. WOODS, APPELLANT

	V.

	DIANA ALICIA VALDEZ, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 69,877-D; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	On December 15, 2004, the clerk of this court received a copy of a Notice of Appeal  filed on behalf of appellant, Deondrick T. Woods.  By letter dated December 28, 2004, the clerk advised appellant that a filing fee had not been received, see Tex. R. App. P. 5.  The clerk’s letter likewise advised that failure to pay the filing fee may result in dismissal of the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. 

	The filing fee has not been paid.  Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

						James T. Campbell

						          Justice
EXHIBIT
32.1



CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with this this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Strategic Environmental & Energy Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31,
2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. John Combs III,
Chief Principal Executive Officer 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, to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | The
    Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results
    of operations of the Company.



| | /s/
    J. John Combs III                                              
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
| | J.
    John Combs III                                                  
| | President
    and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
| | June 1, 2020
TYRONE L. SMITH

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 0749

Opinion filed March 16, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Tyrone L. Smith, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition f or writ of mandamus is denied as premature.

WOLF, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                       4,323,355
<SECURITIES>                                 5,164,046
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,677,084
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (698,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,639,799
<PP&E>                                       5,737,715
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,095,138)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,377,531
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,603,359
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,527
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,250,645
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,377,531
<SALES>                                     13,141,528
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,760,367
<CGS>                                        2,409,441
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,177,790
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,941,866
<INCOME-TAX>                                   826,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,115,866
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,115,866
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44
        

</TABLE>
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00319

- CV

S AIED E MAMI

, Appellant

V

.

K

ATHY J O E MAMI , Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 233rd District

Court

of Tarrant Co unty ( 233

- 686313

- 20 )

August 11, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the t rial

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Saied Emami shall pay all costs of this appeal, for

which let execution i ssue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

Justice Wade Birdwell
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at September 30, 1999 (Unaudited) and the Statement of
Operations for the Nine Months Ended September 30, 1999 (Unaudited) and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          23,842
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,907
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,749
<PP&E>                                       2,029,774
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,576,862
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 521,661
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     521,661
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   521,661
<SALES>                                        115,902
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               138,264
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                67,825
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 70,439
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             70,439
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    70,439
<EPS-BASIC>                                      11.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    11.44


</TABLE>
July 9, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOSEPH VINCENT SZADA , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00957

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage                     *de novo,*                     or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 21, 2017.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City*                     (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:                

                    1.                     *Stockmens Limited Partnership, Rapid City, South Dakota;*                     to engage in investment advisory services, by acquiring a 24 percent interest in Rock Creek Advisors, LLC, Rapid City, South Dakota, and thereby engage in investment advisory services pursuant to section 225.28(b)(6) of Regulation Y.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 1, 2017.

Ann Misback,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2017-19007 Filed 9-6-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE P
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60389 Conference Calendar

MYRON VINCIENT ROWE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ALICIA HANSHAW, Justice Court Clerk, Individually and in Her Official Capacity; STEVEN SHAW, Investigator, Individually and in His Official Capacity; HARRISON COUNTY; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, of the 2nd Judicial District of Harrison County; R. N. ELEUTERIUS; HOMER DEDEAUX, Individually and in his Official Capacity; DAVID LAROSA, Individually and in his Official Capacity; PHILLIP ALLEN, Individually and in his Official Capacity; C. T. SWITZER, JR., Individually and in his Official Capacity; JUSTICE COURT CLERK’S OFFICE, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:97-CV-33-GR

- - - - - - - - - - June 17, 1998 Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *No. 97-60389 -2- Myron Vincient Rowe, Mississippi prisoner # 50681, appeals the dismissal of his suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Rowe contends that the district court erred in dismissing his suit pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and he argues that the dismissal should not count as one “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Rowe also argues that “Judge Shattner Brum” should not have presided over his case, and he seeks Judge Brum's recusal in favor of Judge Walter J. Gex, III, to whom the case was assigned. We have reviewed the record and Rowe’s brief and hold that the district court did not err in dismissing the action pursuant
to Heck

. Johnson v. McElveen , 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court’s dismissal under § 1915(e) will count as one “strike” under § 1915(g). Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). It appears that Rowe has misread Judge Gex’s signature as both the opinion and final judgment were signed by Judge Gex. Further, we hold that Rowe’s appeal is frivolous, and accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal as frivolous. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Rowe’s motion to amend his appellate brief to add a motion for protective order is DENIED. We caution Rowe that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Rowe is further cautioned to review any pendingNo. 97-60389 -3- appeals to ensure that the appeals do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. MOTION DENIED. SANCTION
WARNING ISSUED.
ORTHOLOGIC CORP.
                STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER
              WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING

                      (in thousands, except per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              Three Months Ended      Six Months Ended
                                                   June 30,                 June 30,
                                             --------------------    --------------------
                                               1997        1996        1997        1996
                                             --------------------    --------------------
<S>                                          <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>     
 Net income (loss)                           $ (2,771)   $  1,480    $ (3,044)   $  2,415
                                             ====================    ====================

Common shares outstanding at end of period     25,103      24,981      25,103      24,981


Adjustment to reflect weighted average for
shares issued during the period                    (7)     (1,588)        (37)     (3,472)

Adjustment to reflect assumed exercise
of outstanding stock options                     --         1,376        --         1,225
                                             --------------------    --------------------

Weighted average number of common shares
outstanding                                    25,096      24,769      25,066      22,734
                                             ====================    ====================


 Net income (loss) per weighted average
 number of common shares outstanding         $  (0.11)   $   0.06    $  (0.12)   $   0.11
                                             ====================    ====================
</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DARRELL WARD, DOC #265206, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3380 

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed June 12, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas 

County; Joseph A. Bulone, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and William L. Sharwell, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

LaROSE, Chief Judge.

Darrell Ward appeals his judgment and sentence for burglary of a 

structure, a third-degree felony. See § 810.02(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2015). The trial court 

sentenced him to thirteen years' imprisonment, with a ten-year mandatory minimum as 

a violent career criminal. See § 775.084(4)(d), Fla. Stat. (2015). The trial court also 

entered a restitution order nearly a year before trial. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. 
- 2 -

App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We affirm Mr. Ward's judgment and sentence without further 

comment; we remand for the trial court to strike the restitution order.

During the pendency of this appeal, Mr. Ward moved to correct a 

sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), arguing 

that the restitution order should be stricken because the order preceded his conviction 

and the prosecutor did not request restitution at the sentencing hearing. The State 

explained that the parties discussed restitution at a pretrial hearing but that the trial 

court did not order restitution. It is also apparent the trial court did not impose restitution 

at the sentencing hearing.

The trial court correctly granted the motion and ordered the clerk to strike 

the restitution order. Cf. Hollins v. State, 881 So. 2d 86, 87 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) 

("Restitution is a mandated part of sentencing and must be imposed at the time of 

sentencing or within sixty days thereafter."); cf. also Socorro v. State, 901 So. 2d 940, 

941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ("Prior to ordering restitution, a trial court must determine that: 

(1) the damage or loss for which restitution is ordered was caused directly or indirectly 

by defendant's offense; and (2) there is a significant relationship between the damage to 

the victim and the crime proved." (emphasis added)). The record reflects no 

subsequent action by the clerk. The State concedes that remand is appropriate. 

We affirm Mr. Ward's judgment and sentence. We remand for the trial 

court to enter an order directing the clerk to strike the August 30, 2016, restitution order.

Affirmed and remanded with directions.

KHOUZAM and SLEET, JJ., Concur.