alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45838-45839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20996]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric 
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2540-000.
    Applicants: Imperial Valley Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Certificate of Concurrence 
Solar 3 to be effective 9/25/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170922-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/17.


[[Page 45839]]


    Docket Numbers: ER17-2541-000.
    Applicants: Estill Solar I, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: MBR Application to be 
effective 11/22/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170922-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2542-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-9-22 NSP-MGE-LBA 
Filing-0.0.0-650 to be effective 11/22/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170922-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2543-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2415R8 KMEA NITSA NOA and 
Cancellation of Westar NITSA NOA SA 2390 to be effective 9/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170922-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2544-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-9-22 NSPW Concur to 
NSPM MGE LBA Filing-0.0.0-650 to be effective 11/22/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/22/17.
    Accession Number: 20170922-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/13/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: September 22, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-20996 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SCANTEK
MEDICAL INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>             1
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                              918,393
<SECURITIES>                                      6,860,371
<RECEIVABLES>                                       550,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  8,399,472
<PP&E>                                              408,376
<DEPRECIATION>                                       16,924
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    9,574,692
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             5,182,573
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             17,220
<OTHER-SE>                                        3,806,893
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      9,574,692
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     24,863
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       798,586
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  113,344
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (773,723)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (773,723)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (773,723)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0
                                              
                                  

</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 32 

To amend the definition of ‘‘homeless person’’ under the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act to include certain homeless children and youth. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

Mrs. BIGGERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the definition of ‘‘homeless person’’ under the 

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to include certain homeless children and youth. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homeless Children and 

5 Youth Act of 2011’’. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 32 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION. 

2 Subsection (a) of section 103 of the McKinney-Vento 

3 Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11302(a)) is amend4 ed— 

5 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

6 end; 

7 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the paragraph 

8 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

9 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

10 paragraph: 

11 ‘‘(3)(A) a child or youth who has been verified 

12 as homeless, as such term is defined in section 

13 725(2)(B)(i) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless As14 sistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)(B)(i)), by a local 

15 educational agency homeless liaison, designated pur16 suant to section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney17 Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 

18 11432(g)(1)(J)(ii)), and the family of such child or 

19 youth; 

20 ‘‘(B) a youth verified as homeless by the 

21 director of a program funded under the Run22 away and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 

23 et seq.), or a designee of the director; 

24 ‘‘(C) a child verified as homeless under 

25 section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities 

26 Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401) by the director 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 32 IH

1 or the designee of such program, and the family 

2 of such child; and 

3 ‘‘(D) a child verified as homeless under 

4 section 637 of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 

5 9832) by the director or designee of such pro6 gram, and the family of such child.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
LAW AND CHANCERY COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK

#### C. & P. Telephone Co. v. Joseph Purnell

October 29, 1969

Case No. (Law) 5891

By JUDGE EDWARD L. RYAN, JR.

'At defendant’s request, plaintiff installed a telephone in his residence. Plaintiff here sues defendant for general services, including long-distance calls, rendered between June 28, 1968, and August 28, 1968. Defendant refused to pay the charges and defends on the ground that he, personally, did not make the long-distance calls (save one to New Jersey, the charge therefor being $1.50). Defendant did not, or could not, advise the court as to who did make the telephone calls.

The Constitution of Virginia (i 156) empowers the State Corporation Commission to prescribe rules and regulations for the operation of public utilities, including the plaintiff. The evidence in this case shows that the General Regulations of the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia provides the following:

3, Payment for Service

> The customer is responsible for the payment of *all*charges. . .

> If objection *in writing*is not received by the Telephone Company within *thirty days*after a statement of account is rendered, such statement shall be deemed to be *correct*and *binding upon the customer.*

*488The General Assembly of Virginia has provided in Section 56-478 of the Code of Virginia that the State Corporation Commission shall establish such rates, charges, rules and regulations as may be reasonable and just.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia has ruled that the Commission has broad, general powers and that ”[i]n matters pertaining to the establishment of rates and charges of transmission and transportation companies, the Commission exercises a purely legislative function, and so far as such matters are concerned, it is the legislative branch of the government." This includes the power to provide for or change "any part of a filed schedule, rate, rule or regulation that in any manner affects the rates charged or to be charged." *Newport News v. Telephone*Company, 198 Va. 645 (1957).

In short, the clear law of Virginia is that "[t]he customer is responsible for the payment of *all*charges." The law makes no exception as to *who*makes the calls, and the customer is responsible whether he makes them or someone else does. Further, if the customer desires to make any objection to the charges, he must do so *in writing*and *within thirty days*after the account is rendered and the bill received. In this case the defendant, Mr. Purnell, made no such objection in writing, within thirty days.

The general law is that the rules and regulations are binding on the customer. It follows that judgment must be entered in favor of the plaintiff.
**Exhibit 10.2**

**CERTIFICATE**

**CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE**

THIS CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE HAS NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF
1933, AS AMENDED, OR THE SECURITIES LAWS OF ANY STATE AND MAY NOT BE SOLD, TRANSFERRED,
OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF EXCEPT PURSUANT TO AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT
UNDER SUCH ACT AND APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS OR PURSUANT TO AN APPLICABLE
EXEMPTION FROM THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF SUCH ACT AND LAWS

**GTM HOLDINGS, INC.**

**CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE**

US  $3,000,000                                                                                                                Dated: 31 December 2001

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, GTM HOLDINGS, INC., a Nevada corporation (the "Issuer"), promises to
pay to the order of SUN TELEVISION CYBERNETWORKS HOLDINGS LIMITED, a Bermuda company (the
"Noteholder"), the principal sum of Three Million U.S. dollars (US$3,000,000) on and subject to the terms and conditions
attached hereto.

EXECUTED by the Company as of the date first written above,

**GTM HOLDINGS, INC.**

By: /s/ William A. Fisher

Name: William A. Fisher

Title:  Director

Notes:

1. The Note is neither transferable nor assignable

2. This certificate is governed by, and shall be constructed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Nevada, United
States of America
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

ONYEKACHUKWU NGOZI ENUNWE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-70777

Agency No. A096-514-425

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 24, 2013** 

Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Onyekachukwu Ngozi Enunwe, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for

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

immigration judge’s denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings

conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

FILED

JUL 31 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-70777

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Popa v. Holder,

571 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition

for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Enunwe’s motion to

reopen where Enunwe failed to present evidence that she did not receive proper

notice of her hearing. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229(a)(1), 1229a(b)(5)(A) (written notice

is sufficient if mailed to the most recent address provided by the alien). It follows

that Enunwe’s due process claims fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th

Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

The agency also did not abuse its discretion in denying Enunwe’s motion to

reopen based on changed country conditions where she failed to present any

evidence in support of her claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Enunwe’s contention regarding asylum and

withholding of removal because she failed to raise these claims before the BIA,

and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft,

358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not

presented to the BIA).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
**Exhibit** **32.2**

 

**ANTARES PHARMA, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

The undersigned, Robert F. Apple, the Chief Financial Officer of Antares Pharma, Inc. (the “Company”), has executed this Certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the “Report”).

 

The undersigned hereby certifies 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certification as of the 13th day of November, 2007.

 

|   |   |   |   | /s/ Robert F. Apple                                                |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | Robert F. Apple

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   |   |   |                                                               |
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

#### Martin Joseph O’Brien v. Lerner Corp. et al. Simonne A. O’Brien v. Lerner Corp. et al.

January 12, 1984

Case Nos. (Law) 8010, 8011

By JUDGE DONALD H. KENT

The plaintiffs are the parents of Kathleen S. M. O’Brien who was sexually assaulted in an apartment building which was owned and managed by the defendants. In their motion for judgment the plaintiffs claim to have suffered mental anguish as the result of the incident and base their claim in Count I for negligence, Count II for breach of contract, Count III for breach of statutory duty and in Count IY make a claim for punitive damages. The defendants demurred and oral argument was made on November 23, 1983.

The Court, having considered the pleadings, argument of counsel and the authorities cited by counsel, finds that the motion for judgment does not state a cause of action and the demurrer is sustained.

Ordinarily, damages for mental anguish are not compensable in an action for simple negligence. An exception to this rule is found in *Naccash*v. Burger, 223 Va. 406 (1982), in which the parents had an independent cause of action for negligence committed against them and there was an unbroken chain of causal *158connection linking the negligence and the emotional distress suffered by the parents. In the present case the plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action in Count I since they have suffered indirect injury.

The demurrer is also sustained as to Count II (breach of contract) since the alleged breach does not amount to an independent tort.

With regard to Count III (breach of statutory duty) the Court does not believe that Code § 55-248.13 was directed to criminal acts of third parties. In addition, the alleged injury was not the proximate result of the alleged statutory violation. The demurrer to Count III is sustained.

Since the demurrers to the counts as to compensatory damages have been sustained, there can be no recovery for punitive damages (Count IV).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0660

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JOSHUA DUANE WOLFBLACK,

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 October 30, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 14 2023

09/14/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0660
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Braintech, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the three month period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward
A. White, the Principal Financial and Accounting 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 my knowledge:

(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.



/s/ Edward A. White
-------------------

Edward A. White

Principal Financial Officer and Accounting Officer

Dated: May 15, 2009
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, John Edmunds, the chief Financial Officer of Trident Microsystems, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my
knowledge:

      (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this
      certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

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

Dated: September 13, 2004                          /s/ JOHN S. EDMUNDS
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                     John S. Edmunds
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0000879815   
<NAME>                             GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LTD PARTNERSHIP III-G
                                    
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                 351,163
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                          305,198
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       656,361
<PP&E>                               9,602,310
<DEPRECIATION>                       7,461,021
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       2,873,056
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  161,532
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                           2,622,214
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         2,873,056
<SALES>                              1,845,264
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     1,864,150
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        2,978,443
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (1,114,293)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (1,114,293)
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                        (1,114,293)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            (9.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                0
        
 

</TABLE>
EX-99.1




**CERTIFICATION
      OF**


**PRINCIPAL
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the "Report")
      of WI-TRON, INC. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, I, John
      C.
      Lee, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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.





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




/s/ John
                    C.
                    Lee
                  August
                    20,
                    2007John
                          C. Lee
                        Chief
                          Executive Officer