alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Division Home
- Key Topics
- Contact Us

HomeDevelopment Finance...Infrastructure Transaction Advisory Services

# 									Infrastructure Transaction Advisory Services							

		TAF Host Government Application for Assistance		

## 								Article Index							

        - Eligibility
        - Requesting Support
        - Application Form
        - Review Process
        - Additional Infrastructure Resources

The Transaction Advisory Fund (TAF) provides on-demand, best-in-class legal and consultative services to country governments in support of the development of quality, sustainable infrastructure. TAF services include feasibility studies, environmental and social impact studies, legal and technical review of contracts, and other project preparatory services. These services will generally be of limited duration and in support of a specific infrastructure project. Projects are approved by a U.S. government interagency steering committee.

The TAF is a function of the Infrastructure Transaction and Assistance Network (ITAN).

###  Eligibility

Support through the TAF is limited to public sector (government) agencies, including sub-national governments and state-owned enterprises, in foreign assistance eligible countries in the Indo-Pacific region, Western Hemisphere, and sub-Saharan Africa. TAF activities must comply with applicable legal authorities and restrictions.

TAF will prioritize Low-Income and Lower-Middle Income Countries, as defined by the World Bank, as well as governments with clear capacity constraints, other countries will be reviewed on a case by case basis.

###  Requesting Support

In order to request support through the TAF, please download and complete the application template [164 KB].  You may either e-mail the completed form directly to TAF@state.gov or discuss and submit your project through the applicable U.S. Embassy economic section.

###  Review Process

The Steering Committee of ITAN will conduct an initial review of requests for support on a rolling basis. Following preliminary approval by the Steering Committee, a representative of the U.S. government will contact you for additional information about your request in order to develop a detailed scope of work and procure the requested services.

The U.S. will not contact applicants whose requests have not received preliminary approval from the Steering Committee.

###  Additional Infrastructure Resources

The Government of the United States has a range of resources and programs available to assist U.S. companies and foreign governments in meeting their needs for infrastructure design, financing, and construction, as well as operations and maintenance needs. The International Trade Administration provides an overview of applicable U.S. government resources  throughout the project lifecycle.

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentForeign Assistance

Back to Top
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2156

SHERIKA L. JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

TYSON FOODS, INCORPORATED; JAKE CLARKE, a/k/a

Daniel Clarke,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District

Judge. (CA-04-276-3)

Submitted: February 28, 2005 Decided: April 14, 2005

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael D. Hancock, PETTY, MULLEN, HANCOCK, P.L.L.C., Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellant. Rafael E. Morell, OGLETREE, DEAKINS,

NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee Tyson

Foods, Inc.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Sherika L. Jones appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on her Title VII action. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,

No. CA-04-276-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 13, 2004). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 17,269.

#### Egan, by Next Friend, *v.*The Ohio and Mississippi Railway Company.

*Appeal.*— Dismissal.—Failure *to Page, Number Lines, and Make Marginal Notes.*— When *will not be Reinstated.*— Where an appeal has been dismissed for failure to make marginal notes and for failure to . number the lines and pages, in accordance with rule 31 of this court, the appeal will not be reinstated where no excuse is shown for the noncompliance with the rule before dismissal.

From the Daviess Circuit Court.

*J. W. Burton,*for appellant.

*W. B. Gardiner, J. Harmon, E. W. Strong*and *C.*U. *Gardiner,*for appellee.

Hackney, C. J.

On the 17th day of May 1894, the appeal herein was dismissed for the noncompliance, by the appellant, with rule 31 of this court, requiring the pages and lines of the transcript to be numbered and marginal references to be made in their appropriate places, indicating the several parts of the pleadings in the cause, the exhibits, orders of the court, and bills of exceptions. The appellant now moves the court to reinstate his appeal, and offers no excuse whatever for his ndncompliance with the rule before such dismissal, but shows that since the dismissal he has complied with the requirements of said rule. The importance of the rule, when complied with, to the interests of appellants, and its value to counsel in briefing and arguing causes, and its assistance to the court in considering the questions presented, will suggest, at once, the importance of the rule and the necessity for an enforcement of its requirements. No other index or reference is required to accompany the transcript, and, usually, no other is supplied.

*275Filed June 21, 1894.

These references the rule requires of appellants, and, as said in *Smith*v. *State, ex rel.,*137 Ind. 198, the requirements “are not merely directory, and may not be ignored or disregarded. It is not only the right, but the duty, of the court to enforce them.”

Having failed to comply with the important requirements of the rule, and the court having sustained the appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal, the appellant asks us to consider a subsequent compliance sufficient cause to reinstate the appeal. To sustain the appellant’s motion would be little less than trifling with the rule, and instead of treating the rule as of so little consequence, we are inclined to enforce a more strict compliance with it than has been required in most instances in the past.

If the appellant had made a showing of excusable neglect, the motion would be entitled to greater consideration, but, to take the chances of dismissal for a noncompliance with the rule, and then to be rewarded by a reinstatement of the appeal, is to encourage the overthrow of the rule. The motion is less meritorious because of the fact that notice of the appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal was served upon the appellant in sufficient time to have sought and procured permission to complete the record before the action of the court in sustaining said motion to dismiss.

The motion to reinstate is overruled.
October 17, 2011

MEMORANDUM

From: William H. Maxwell EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01)

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234

Subject: Meeting with Power/Utilities America Group of the Global Infrastructure Group, at Moody’s Rating Agency

Attendees :

Joseph Goffman, EPA/OAR/ OAA/OPMO Ellen Kurlansky, EPA/OAR/OAA/OPAR Jim Hempstead, SVP Infrastructure A.J. Sabatelle, SVP Infrastructure Mitchell Moss, Analyst – Utilities Bill Hunter, VP Senior Analyst - Infrastructure Clifford Kim, VP – Sr. Analyst – Project Finance Ayesha Gopal, Associate - Utilities Franklin Sherman, Associ ate – Infrastructure

Discussion :

A general discussion was held of the historical background and practical implications of the Cross-state Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. (the “Company”)for the quarterly period ended February 26, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Nicholas Konidaris, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

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

 

 
| /s/ Nicholas Konidaris                           |   |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Nicholas Konidaris                               |
| President, Chief Executive  Officer and Director |
| Dated: March 22, 2005                       |

 

----
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Herman WILLIAM v. Harry CONNICK, District Attorney & James Parson, Chief of Police.

No. 80-KH-1630.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1981.

In re Herman William, applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Orleans. No. 248-251.

Writ denied. Relator should apply first in the trial court.
<PAGE>

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 Annual Report of Allegiant Bancorp, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jeffrey S. Schatz, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial 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:

     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.

January 30, 2004                  By: /s/ Jeffrey S. Schatz
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                      Jeffrey S. Schatz, Executive Vice
                                        President and Chief Financial Officer
                                        of Allegiant Bancorp Inc.
# C_2006033EN.01000101.xml

| 9.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 33/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

8 February 2006

(2006/C 33/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1948 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 141,51 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4667 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68610 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2713 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5529 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 74,97 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0165 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5742 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,473 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 251,29 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8225 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5820 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,49 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,650 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,5950 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6195 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3808 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,2740 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7669 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9518 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 161,05 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,4712 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,6235 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3502 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 069,82 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,461 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,843 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 33,7940 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,491 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1948

JPY

Japanese yen

141,51

DKK

Danish krone

7,4667

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68610

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2713

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5529

ISK

Iceland króna

74,97

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0165

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5742

CZK

Czech koruna

28,473

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

251,29

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8225

RON

Romanian leu

3,5820

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,49

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,650

TRY

Turkish lira

1,5950

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6195

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3808

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,2740

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7669

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9518

KRW

South Korean won

1 161,05

ZAR

South African rand

7,4712

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,6235

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3502

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 069,82

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,461

PHP

Philippine peso

61,843

RUB

Russian rouble

33,7940

THB

Thai baht

47,491

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
§ 137.444 If a Self-Governance Tribe objects to the recommended decision, what action will the Secretary take? ( a ) The Secretary has 15 days from the date the Secretary receives timely written objections to modify, adopt, or reverse the recommended decision. If the Secretary does not modify or reverse the recommended decision during that time, the recommended decision automatically becomes final.
( b ) When reviewing the recommended decision, the Secretary may consider and decide all issues properly raised by any party to the appeal, based on the record.
( c ) The decision of the Secretary must: ( 1 ) Be in writing;
( 2 ) Specify the findings of fact or conclusions of law that are modified or reversed;
( 3 ) Give reasons for the decision, based on the record; and
( 4 ) State that the decision is final for the Secretary.
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-59376 on Form S-3and Nos. 33-93538, 33-41453, 33-48646, 33-77080, 333-4620, 333-31753, 333-59547, 333-80071,333-36836, 333-62574, 333-92368, 333-107875 and 333-125392 on Form S-8 of our reports dated January17, 2007, relating to the financial statements of Somanetics Corporation, and management’s reporton the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Reporton Form 10-K of Somanetics Corporation for the year ended November 30, 2006.   /s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT Page 3 of 6 

CASE NUMBER: P060622 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 6


POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT Page 6 of 6 

CASE NUMBER: P060622 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 6
# C_2006067EN.01003402.xml

| 18.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/34

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4093 — Toyota Tsusho/Tomen)

(2006/C 67/15)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 10 March 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4093. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4093. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
Exhibit
99.2





PROXY





WHEREAS Chi Lin Technologies Co., Ltd
(“Chi Lin”)., an entity of the Republic of China (Taiwan), doing business at No.
18, Sheng Li 1st Street,
Jen Te Hsiang, Tainan County 717, Taiwan is the owner of 6,043,704 shares (the
“InMedica Shares”) of restricted common stock of InMedica Development
Corporation, a Utah corporation (“InMedica”); and





WHEREAS Larry Clark, Ralph Henson and
Richard Bruggeman desire to acquire an irrevocable proxy to be able to vote the
InMedica Shares held by Chi Lin in any vote on the proposed merger or
acquisition with x-Mobility, Ron Conquest, and/or its affiliates.





THEREFORE, for good and valuable
consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged:





Chi Lin hereby appoints LARRY CLARK and
RALPH HENSON and RICHARD BRUGGEMAN, and the survivors or survivor of them, with
full power of substitution, to vote the InMedica Shares, as defined above, for a
period of one year from the date hereof; provided however, that any vote by the
proxies shall be unanimous, and that the voting of this proxy is limited to use
at any shareholders’ meeting or any consent resolution of the shareholders of
InMedica that may be necessary or recommended by counsel to approve a merger or
acquisition transaction between InMedica and Synergistic and/or its affiliates,
including Ron Conquest, x-Mobility and/or
others.     This proxy is coupled with an interest in
that Clark, Henson and Bruggeman are creditors of InMedica and have extended
credit to the Company and continue to forebear collection of amounts owing to
them based on, among other things, this proxy being granted to enhance their
security for payment by InMedica of obligations owing to them. Clark, Henson and
Bruggeman each agrees that they will be responsible to report to the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission any change in their beneficial ownership in
InMedica occasioned by this proxy, pursuant to the appropriate forms under
section 16a of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Williams Act of
United States securities laws.





Dated the
10th
day of September, 2008.





CHI
LIN TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.





/s/ Yeou
– Geng, Hsu


Signature


Print
Name:  Yeou – Geng, Hsu


Title:
President
#### James R. Keane et al., Respondents, *v.*Gustav Engel et al., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court, seventh district, borough of Manhattan, New York city.

M. Bayersdorfer, for appellants.

Thomas Gilleran, for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment as to the defendant Johanna Engel should be affirmed, but it must be reversed as to the defendant Gustav Engel, as the evidence is not sufficient to justify the conclusion that he co-operated with his codefendant in the conversion for which the action was brought.

Judgment affirmed, with costs as to the defendant Johanna • Engel, and reversed as to the defendant Gustav Engel, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Gildersleeve and Giegerich, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs as to Johanna Engel, and reversed as to Gustav Engel, and new trial ordered, with costs ° appellant to abide event.
TOUCHSTONE APPLIED SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, INC.
                              AND SUBSIDIARIES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                EXHIBIT 11

                  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                                 (Unaudited)

                                              Nine Months Ended              Three Months Ended
                                                   July 31,                        July 31,
                                            2 0 0 3         2 0 0 2        2 0 0 3          2 0 0 2
                                            -------         -------        -------          -------
<S>                                   <C>             <C>            <C>              <C>

Continuing operations:
Basic earnings:
  Income (loss) from continuing
   operations                            $   76,844      $   (20,556)    $  157,625       $  135,848

Shares:
   Weighted common shares outstanding     2,594,475        2,584,802      2,594,518        2,594,453
                                         ----------      -----------     ----------       ----------

Basic earnings per common share from
   continuing operations                 $      .03      $      (.01)    $      .06       $      .05
                                         ==========      ===========     ==========       ==========

Diluted earnings:
  Income (loss) from continuing
   operations                            $   76,844      $   (20,556)    $  157,625       $  135,848

Shares:
   Weighted common shares outstanding     2,644,277        2,584,802      2,644,321        2,594,453
                                         ----------      -----------     ----------       ----------

Diluted earnings per share from
   continuing operations                 $      .03      $      (.01)    $      .06       $      .05
                                         ==========      ===========     ==========       ==========

Discontinued operations:
Basic earnings:
  Income (loss) from discontinued
   operations                            $  152,203      $(2,308,504)    $  963,059       $  229,841

Shares:
  Weighted common shares outstanding      2,594,475        2,584,802      2,594,518        2,594,453
                                         ----------      -----------     ----------       ----------

Basic earnings per common share from
  discontinued operations                $      .06      $      (.89)    $      .37       $      .09
                                         ==========      ===========     ==========       ==========


Diluted earnings:
  Income (loss) from discontinued
   operations                            $  152,203      $(2,308,504)    $  963,059       $  229,841

Shares:
   Weighted common shares outstanding     2,644,277        2,584,802      2,644,321        2,594,453
                                         ----------      -----------     ----------       ----------

Diluted earnings per share from
  discontinued operations                $      .05      $      (.89)    $      .36       $      .09
                                         ==========      ===========     ==========       ==========


</TABLE>