alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9830-9831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3430]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-220-000]


National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Tariff Filing

February 6, 2001.
    Take notice that on January 31, 2001, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet to 
become effective February 1, 2001.

Thirty Second Revised Sheet No. 9

    National states that under Article II, Section 2, of the 
settlement, it is required to recalculate the maximum Interruptible 
Gathering (IG) rate monthly and to charge that rate on the first day of 
the following month if the result is an IG rate more than 2 cents above 
or below the IG rate as calculated under Section 1 of Article II. The 
recalculation produced an IG rate of 52 cents per dth. In addition, 
Article III, Section 1 states that any overruns of the Firm Gathering 
service provided by National shall be priced at the maximum IG rate.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion

[[Page 9831]]

to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance 
with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance 
with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This 
filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may 
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-3430 Filed 2-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wendolen Leonard HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-17906.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2010.*

Filed Dec. 20, 2010.

*217Jeffrey T. Tao, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason F. Carr, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: COWEN,** TASHIMA, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Robert E. Cowen, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Wendolen Howard appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

We agree with the district court that Howard did not establish that his trial counsel’s allegedly deficient performance caused him prejudice. The record makes plain that Howard withdrew his guilty plea with full knowledge of the thirteen incriminating recordings that the Government eventually used to convict him at trial. Howard argues that had his counsel provided him with the remaining recordings (the ones the Government never sought to use at trial), he would have known that those recordings did not contain exculpatory material capable of saving him at trial and, having thus lost any lingering hope of prevailing before a jury, would have maintained his plea. This argument does not establish prejudice under the “reasonable probability” standard. *Styers v. Schriro,*547 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir.2008) (quoting *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 695, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)).

Howard decided to withdraw his guilty plea and take his chances at trial despite overwhelming evidence against him and despite his counsel’s strong advice to the contrary. There is no reason to think Howard would have acted more rationally after confirming that the remaining tapes did not contain a defense panacea. Indeed, he does not explain what panacea the remaining tapes could possibly have contained. His only suggestion is that he thought the other tapes might place the inculpatory material “in context,” but as his trial counsel points out, admissions of guilt and blatant cover-up attempts resist contextualization. On this record, the ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails for lack of prejudice. *See, e.g., United States v. Fry,*322 F.3d 1198, 1201 (9th Cir.2003); *Jackson v. Calderon,*211 F.3d 1148, 1155 (9th Cir.2000). We thus need not explore *Strickland’s*other prong.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. E D U A R D O P A N O C A N O , a . k. a . E dua r do C a no P a no, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 11- 10025 D . C . N o . 1 : 0 2 - c r - 0 5 0 5 0 - A WI ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A nthonyW . I s hi i , C hi e f Judge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r21, 2011 ** B efo re: T A S H IM A , B E R Z O N , an dT A L L M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E du ar do P ano C ano app ea l s f rom the 18 8-m on th sent ence i m po se d f o llo w in g h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n f o rc o n s p ir a c yto m a n u f

a c tu r e an dd is tr ib u te m e tha m phe t a m i ne , a nd a i di ng a nd abe tt i ng i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) 

# FI LED NO V 29 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 10025 2 a n d8 4 6 , a n d1 8 U. S . C . § 2 . We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n dwe a f f i rm. C a n o c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e din d e n y in g h im am in o rr o le ad ju stm en t u n d erU .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .2 . T h e d istrict co u rt co n sid er ed C an o ’s a r gum e nttha the w a s s ubs t a nt i a l l yl e s s c ul pabl e tha n hi s c o- de f e nda nt s , a nd r e je c te dit. I n lig h t o f

C a n o ’s e f

f o rts to f u rth e rth e c o n s p ir a c y , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id notc om m i te rr orbyc onc l udi ng tha the di d notm e e thi s bur de n t o pr ove tha the w a s e n title dto am in o rr o le a d ju s tm e n t. Se e U

ni te d States v . R os as , 615 F . 3d 10 58 , 10 67 -68 (9th C i r. 20 10 ). AF F I RME D.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 167

To amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate maximum-age entry

requirements for Federal law enforcement officers and firefighters.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. DUNCAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

A BILL

To amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate maximum-age entry requirements for Federal law enforcement officers and firefighters.

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

3 That section 3307 of title 5, United States Code, is

4 amended by striking subsections (c) through (e) and in5 serting the following:

6 ‘‘(c) The Secretary of the Interior may fix a mini7 mum-age requirement for original appointment to the

8 United States Park Police.

9 ‘‘(d) The head of an agency may fix a minimum-age

10 requirement for original appointment to a position within
2

•HR 167 IH

1 such agency as a law enforcement officer or firefighter,

2 as defined under section 8331.

3 ‘‘(e) The head of an agency may fix a minimum-age

4 requirement for original appointment to a position within

5 such agency as a law enforcement officer or firefighter,

6 as defined under section 8401.’’.

Æ
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EG01-39-000]

                    Take notice that on January 18, 2001, Duke Energy McClain, LLC (Duke McClain), tendered for filing an amendment with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to its Application for Commission                           ( print page 9700)                        Determinations of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status which was filed on December 1, 2000, in the above-referenced docket.                 

Duke McClain requests that the reference to “gas storage” activities be stricken from its Application. Duke McClain has also requested expedited consideration of its Application as modified.

                    Any person desiring to be heard concerning the application for exempt wholesale generator status should file a motion to intervene or comments 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). The Commission will limit its consideration of comments to those that concern the adequacy or accuracy of the application. All such motions and comments should be filed on or before February 15, 2001, and must be served on the applicant. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection or on the internet at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (please call (202) 208-2222 for assistance).                

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-3339  Filed 2-8-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ISELA PENA GARCIA,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00129-CR

Appeal from the

143rd District Court

of Reeves County, Texas 

(TC# 17-07-08169-CRR)

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion requesting appointment of counsel. The 

trial court appointed counsel to represent Appellant on appeal, and that attorney filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that Appellant’s appeal is frivolous. 

In accordance with the procedures established in Anders, counsel also filed a motion to withdraw 

as appellate counsel. The Court will not rule on the motion to withdraw until it has had an 

opportunity to complete an independent review of the record and the briefs. Appellant is entitled 

to review the record and file her own brief with the Court (referred to as Appellant’s pro se brief). 

The pro se brief is currently due to be filed on March 9, 2019. Appellant is not entitled to have 

another attorney appointed to assist her in preparing the pro se brief. Appellant’s motion for 

appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of February, 2019.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [MT-920-01-1310-FI-P; NDM 87298, NDM 87300, NDM 87301, NDM 87303]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Per Pub. L. 97-451, the lessee timely filed a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas leases NDM 87298, NDM 87300, NDM 87301, and NDM 87303, McKenzie County, North Dakota. The lessee paid the required rentals accruing from the dates of termination.

We haven't issued any leases affecting the lands. The lessee agrees to new lease terms for rentals and royalties of $10 per acre and 16-2/3 percent or 4 percentages above the existing competitive royalty rate. The lessee paid the $500 administration fee for the reinstatement of each lease and $148 cost for publishing this Notice.

The lessee has met the requirements for reinstatement of the leases per Section 31 (d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). We are proposing to reinstate the leases, effective the date of termination subject to:
      - The original terms and conditions of the leases;
      - The increased rental of $10 per acre;
      - The increased royalty of 16 2/3 percent or 4 percentages above the existing competitive royalty rate; and
      - The $148 cost of publishing this Notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen L. Johnson, Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section, BLM Montana State Office, P.O. Box 36800, Billings, Montana 59107, (406) 896-5098

Dated: January 22, 2001.

Karen L. Johnson,

Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section.

[FR Doc. 01-3512 Filed 2-9-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P
109 A.3d 668

#### IN THE MATTER OF MARY C. IAZZETTA, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 024341986).

March 11, 2015.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 14-188, concluding that the violations of *RPC*1.15(d) (recordkeeping deficiencies) by MARY C. IAZZETTA of CLINTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1986, are *de minimis*and undeserving of formal discipline and that the formal complaint in Docket No. XIV-2013-0485 therefore should be dismissed, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the formal complaint against MARY C. IAZZETTA in Docket No. XIV-2013-0485E is hereby dismissed.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT  21

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



Name of Corporation                             State of Incorporation
-------------------                             ----------------------

Clearwater Acquisition Corporation                  Delaware
SPIANTONIO, Inc.                                    Delaware
SPIAPTLA, Inc.                                      Delaware
SPIBILE, Inc.                                       Alabama
SPICLIFF, Inc.                                      Delaware
SPICOMLA, Inc.                                      Delaware
SPILAF, Inc.                                        Alabama
SPILAKE, Inc.                                       Delaware
SPILAN, Inc.                                        Delaware
SPIMALLA, Inc.                                      Delaware
SPINAP, Inc.                                        Delaware
SPINELLON, Inc.                                     Delaware
SPINO, Inc.                                         Delaware
SPIPAL, Inc.                                        Delaware
SPITON, Inc.                                        Alabama
SPITOWN Corporation                                 Delaware
SPIWACHEE, Inc.                                     Delaware
SPIWARD, Inc.                                       Delaware
**Exhibit 31.1****PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S CERTIFICATION:**I, Richard B. Berliner, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report of Berliner Communications, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Quarterly Report.  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this Quarterly Report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,and for, the periods presented in this Quarterly Report.  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inSecurities Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant, and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this Quarterly Report isbeing prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this Quarterly Report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this Quarterly Report, based on such evaluation; andc) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting. 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the Audit Committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlsover financial reporting.    Date: November 14, 2005       /s/ Richard B. Berliner     Richard B. Berliner  Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 30 , 2012

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 00452

- CR

VERNON ADDISON , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 23rd District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 67634



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On May 8, 2012, appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of his pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus.

On July 26, 2012 , this court ordered a hearing to determine why appellant = s counsel had not filed a brief in this appeal. On October 22, 2012 , the trial court conducted the hearing, and the record of the hearing was filed in this court on October 23,
2012

.2

At the hearing, appellant
, together with his counsel, confirmed that he had discussed the issues with counsel and determined that appellant no longer wished to pursue his appeal.
Appellant has not filed a written motion to withdraw the appeal or a written
motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App

. P. 42.2(a). However, based upon the testimony at the hearing that appellant does not want to continue his appeal, we conclude that good cause exists to suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a) in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 2.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Seymore, Boyce, and McCally

. Do Not Publish

C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
#### Thomas J. REGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE, LOCAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-388-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 28, 2011.

*569Thomas J. Regan, pro se, West Hemp-stead, NY.

Patrick J. Walsh, Assistant Solicitor General, State of New York Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Appellees.

PRESENT: WALKER, CHESTER J. STRAUB and ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Thomas J. Regan, pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss his amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“We review *de novo*a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” *Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.,*282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” *Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,*550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” *Ashcroft v.*Iqbal,-U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). A claim will have “facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” *Id.*

Having conducted an independent and *de novo*review of the record, we affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned decisions dismissing Regan’s original and amended complaints. We have considered Regan’s arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.