alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13522-13523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5350]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2941]


S.D. Warren Company; Notice of Authorization for Continued 
Project Operation

February 28, 2001.
    On January 22, 1999, S.D. Warren Company, licensee for the Little 
Falls Project No. 2941, filed an application for a new or subsequent 
license pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's 
regulations thereunder. Project No. 2941 is located on the Presumpscot 
River in Cumberland County, Maine.
    The license for Project No. 2941 was issued for a period ending 
January 26, 2001. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), 
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue 
from year to year an annual license to the then licensee under the 
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is 
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior 
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based 
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), 
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project 
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may 
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and 
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license 
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee 
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent 
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to 
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a 
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2941 is issued to 
S.D. Warren Company for a period effective January 27, 2001, through 
January 26, 2002, or until the issuance of a new license for the 
project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If 
issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on 
or before January 27, 2002, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 
CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is 
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the

[[Page 13523]]

Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that S.D. Warren Company is authorized to continue 
operation of the Little Falls Project No. 2941 until such time as the 
Commission acts on its application for subsequent license.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-5350 Filed 3-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0001026488
<NAME>                        MICRO-HYDRO POWER, INC.                       
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          15,847
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3
<OTHER-SE>                                    (15,850)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (119)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (119)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.01)
        


</TABLE>
#### Joseph SLOVINEC, Appellant v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, Appellee.

No. 10-5374.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Feb. 22, 2011.

Joseph Slovinee, Washington, DC, pro se.

Donna M. Murasky, Esquire, Deputy Solicitor, Office of the Attorney General, District of Columbia Office of the Solicitor Washington, DC, for Appellee.

BEFORE: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and GINSBURG and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.

*362
      *JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed November 8, 2010, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice because it did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). *See Ciralsky v. CIA,*355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C.Cir.2004). That rule requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). The district court correctly concluded that the complaint, as well as appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal, failed to give the defendant “fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” *Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,*550 U.S. 544, 550, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
Country Net Weight 

Presented Percentage Cumulative 

CANADA 1,680,300,169 38.53% 39%

AUSTRALIA 1,151,265,071 26.40% 65%

NEW ZEALAND 560,969,120 12.86% 78%

MEXICO 369,905,047 8.48% 86%

URUGUAY 103,643,074 2.38% 89%

CHILE 83,828,860 1.92% 91%

NICARAGUA 82,913,585 1.90% 92%

DENMARK 78,159,213 1.79% 94%

BRAZIL 74,352,754 1.71% 96%

POLAND 69,478,177 1.59% 98%

COSTA RICA 20,567,365 0.47% 98%

ITALY 19,329,313 0.44% 98%

IRELAND 16,586,033 0.38% 99%

NETHERLANDS 12,759,664 0.29% 99%

UNITED KINGDOM 10,184,430 0.23% 99%

SPAIN 9,476,433 0.22%

NORTHERN IRELAND 4,687,542 0.11%

HONDURAS 2,686,540 0.06%

ISRAEL 2,612,191 0.06%

GERMANY 2,217,307 0.05%

KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 1,297,043 0.03%

FINLAND 1,285,775 0.03%

ARGENTINA 662,720 0.02%

HUNGARY 577,356 0.01%

ICELAND 486,258 0.01%

JAPAN 445,745 0.01%

CROATIA 351,837 0.01%

FRANCE 102,793 0.00%

SAN MARINO 36,100 0.00%

AUSTRIA 13,650 0

Total Presented 4,361,181,165 100.00%

United Kingdom includes England, Scotland and Wales - which are under one inspection system.

Northern Ireland is under a separate inspection system and is listed seperately.

"Egg product" includes shell eggs.

Egg product imports in 2015 = 18,900,508 pounds. 

All egg product imports were from Canada (14,637,052 pounds) and 

Netherlands (4,263,456 pounds).

These data are for meat and poultry imports.

2015 Import Data

Food Safety and Inspection Service

Office of Field Operations

Import Inspection
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)  In connection with the Annual Report of Sync2
Entertainment Corporation., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), James Fitzpatrick, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his 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.  By:

/s/ James FitzpatrickName:

James FitzpatrickTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerDate:

April 14, 2009  [A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Sync2 Entertainment Corporation. and will be
retained by Sync2 Entertainment Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]       Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)  In connection with the Annual Report of Sycn2
Entertainment Corporation., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), John Moore, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his 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.  By:
/s/ John MooreName:
John MooreTitle:
Chief Financial OfficerDate:
April14, 2009  [A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Sync2 Entertainment Corporation and will be
retained by Sync2 Entertainment Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
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. RP01-222-000]

Take notice that on February 1, 2001, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) filed an emergency petition pursuant to Rule 207(a)(4) and (5) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. The filing requests that the Commission immediately rescind the portion of Order No. 637 that removed the price cap for short-term capacity releases for service to the California border and to points of interconnection between interstate pipelines and California local distribution companies until March 31, 2001. LADWP further requests that the Commission initiate a proceeding that will allow the Commission to determine by March 31, 2001, if the removal of the price cap on short-term transactions associated with the California market is warranted.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion 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 on or before March 2, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protesters parties in 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. 01-5101  Filed 3-1-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 12817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4837]


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

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

Information Security Oversight Office


National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee; 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 
app. 2) and implementing regulation 41 CFR 101.6, announcement is made 
for a meeting of the National Industrial Security Program Policy 
Advisory Committee (NISPPAC).

DATES: April 5, 2001, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: National Archives and Records Administration, 700 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 105, Washington, DC 20408.
    Purpose: To discuss National Industrial Security Program policy 
matters.
    This meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space 
limitations and access procedures, the name and telephone number of 
individuals planning to attend must be submitted to the Information 
Security Oversight Office (ISOO) no later than March 28, 2001. ISOO 
will provide additional instructions for gaining access to the location 
of the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Garfinkel, Director, 
Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives Building, 700 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 100, Washington, DC 20408, telephone 
(202) 219-5250.

    Dated: February 14, 2001.
Mary Ann Hadyka,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-4837 Filed 2-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-U
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2421

To amend the White House Conference on Small Business Authorization

Act to provide additional time for conducting State conferences and

a national conference under that Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 15, 1993

Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas (for herself, Mr. COMBEST, Mr. SKELTON, Mr.

BAKER of Louisiana, Mr. SISISKY, Mr. MACHTLEY, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr.

TORKILDSEN, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. ZELIFF, Mr. EWING,

Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. KIM, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr.

SANTORUM, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, and Mr. DICKEY) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business

A BILL

To amend the White House Conference on Small Business

Authorization Act to provide additional time for conducting State conferences and a national conference under

that Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2421 IH

1 SECTION 1. CHANGES IN TIMING IN WHITE HOUSE CON2 FERENCE ON SMALL BUSINESS AUTHORIZA3 TION ACT.

4 Section 2 of the White House Conference on Small

5 Business Authorization Act (Public Law 101–409; 104

6 Stat. 885) is amended in subsection (a)—

7 (1) by striking out ‘‘January 1, 1994,’’ and in8 serting in lieu thereof ‘‘January 1, 1995,’’;

9 (2) by striking out ‘‘April 1, 1994,’’ and insert10 ing in lieu thereof ‘‘April 1, 1995,’’; and

11 (3) by striking out ‘‘December 1, 1992.’’ and

12 inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘December 1, 1993.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 31(b)
 SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;
 b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;
 c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and
 d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Herman F. Dick, Jr.Herman F. Dick, Jr.Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer
ALEXANDER LAMAR PRINCE

,
Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,
Appellee

. 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

- 4857

_ ____________________________/

Opinion filed November 15, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Waddell A. Wallace , Judge

.

Joe Hamrick, Rick A. Sichta, and Susanne K. Sichta of The Sichta Firm, LLC, Jacksonville , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Robert "Charlie" Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR

, KELSEY

, and WINSOR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
Order entered August 11, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00531-CR

JAMES EDMOND AUSTIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-81075-2015

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was due July 1, 2016. The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a 

hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall 

make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to 

prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel 

has abandoned the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain 

appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s 

absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per 

curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be 

necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from OnSale, Inc.
Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          34,840
<SECURITIES>                                    17,149
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,565
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (860)
<INVENTORY>                                      7,213
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,313
<PP&E>                                           4,829
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,413)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,874
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,086
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,769
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,874
<SALES>                                         50,796
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,796
<CGS>                                           46,138
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,549
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,037)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,037)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,037)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.21)
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 12, 2016

No. 04-15-00807-CR

Mark Allen WATSON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-2380-CR-B

The Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s 

brief is due on September 19, 2016. No further extensions will be granted.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of September, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court