alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1462]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Report No. 2380


Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action In 
Rulemaking Proceedings

January 14, 2000.
    Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification has been filed in 
the Commission's rulemaking proceedings listed in this Public Notice 
and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of 
these documents are available for viewing and copying in Room CY-A257, 
445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to 
these petitions must be filed by February 7, 2000. See Section 
1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an 
opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing 
oppositions has expired.
    Subject: Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (CC 
Docket No. 96-115).
    Telecommunications Carrier's Use of Customer Proprietary Network 
Information and Other Customer Information.
    Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (CC Docket No. 96-98).
    Provision of Directory Listing Information Under the 
Telecommunications Act of 1934, As Amended (CC Docket No. 99-273).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

    Subject: Modification and Clarification of Policies and Procedures 
Governing Siting and Maintenance of Amateur Radio Antennas and Support 
Structures, and Amendment of Section 97.15 of the Rules Governing the 
Amateur Radio Service (RM-8763).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-1462 Filed 1-20-00;8:45am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
#### § 2.6 Severability, amendment, repeal, and waiver of bylaws.

The invalidity of any provision of these bylaws does not affect the validity of the remaining provisions, and for this purpose these bylaws are severable. The Board may amend or repeal these bylaws at any special or regular meeting, provided that each member of the Board has received a written notice containing a statement of the proposed amendment or repeal at least five (5) business days before the meeting. The members of the Board may waive the five (5) business days' notice or the operation of any other provision of these bylaws by unanimous consent, if that action is not prohibited by law. The Secretary shall submit the text of any amendment to these bylaws for publication in the Federal Register as soon as practicable after the amendment is adopted by the Board.

[86 FR 10012, Feb. 18, 2021]
§ 25.605 Claims not payable. A claim is not payable under this subpart if it: ( a ) Is legally recoverable by the claimant under a compensation statute or an insurance policy;
( b ) Results wholly or partly from the negligent or wrongful act of the claimant, claimant's agent or employee;
( c ) Is a subrogated claim;
( d ) Is cognizable under any other provision of law or regulation administered by the Coast Guard; or
( e ) Is for any element of damage pertaining to death or personal injury, other than the cost of reasonable medical, hospital, and burial expenses actually incurred and not otherwise furnished or paid by the United States.
###### Editorial Note on Part 159

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 159 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

#### § 159.71 Electrical controls and conductors.

Electrical controls and conductors must be installed in accordance with good marine practice. Wire must be copper and must be stranded. Electrical controls and conductors must be protected from exposure to chemicals and sewage.
FeedbackSite MapContact

HOW CAN WE HELP YOU?
		Search for:
	HomeAbout ADRLegislation and Interagency ADR Working GroupReport for the President on Significant Developments in Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution, January 2017 (PDF)External-Facing Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the PublicConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the Federal WorkforcePrograms and ContactsResources and GuidanceConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Resources for Federal ADR ProgramsInteragency ADR Working Group Resource CenterEventsCoalition of Federal Ombuds
Search for:  Part II – Acquisition Planning

															Home/ADR Resources and Guidance/Guidance/Part II – Acquisition Planning Part II – Acquisition PlanningADR2022-02-18T11:37:18-05:00
			
			Part II – Acquisition PlanningSometimes the best way to win a fight is to avoid it.
When issues in controversy arise, the ASBCA, CBCA, and ODRA all offer assistance before the formal filing of an action. The CBCA calls their process an “early assessment;” the ASBCA refers to “off-docket matters,” and the ODRA uses the term “pre-disputes.” The Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), Baltimore District, has a policy where ACE personnel will meet with a contractor, prior to issuing the contracting officer’s final decision, to let the contractor provide additional information. The contracting officer will give a preliminary read on his or her position, but is still open to receiving additional information from the contractor. This is done to ensure that the ACE contracting officer has all relevant facts and a solid understanding of the issues prior to issuing his or her final decision.
In government contracting, avoiding a protest or claim also can be achieved through some up-front planning in the early stages of the acquisition. The following chapters introduce several ADR techniques that contracting officers should consider when drafting their next solicitation.
Perhaps enhancing your debriefing process will avoid a protest. *See* Ch.8, Improved Debriefings.
Perhaps a standing set of neutrals will offer a quick and streamlined first-read on a matter. *See* Ch.07, DR Boards.
Maybe improving the communication process between the parties will help on a big job. *See* Ch.6, Partnering.
Finally, a preliminary commitment to use ADR could help ease the pain if a dispute is unavoidable. *See* Ch.5, ADR Clauses. Copyright 2022 ADR.gov | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Section 508
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4853 Received in Senate (RDS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4853

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 13 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 1568 South Green Road in South Euclid, Ohio, as the ``Arnold C. 
                           D'Amico Station''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1568 
South Green Road in South Euclid, Ohio, and known as the South Euclid 
Station, shall be known and designated as the ``Arnold C. D'Amico 
Station''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Arnold C. D'Amico Station''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 12, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### § 5.13 Advancement.

The Commandant will prescribe the circumstances and qualifications under which members of the Auxiliary may be advanced in offices and programs.
Senior Nutrition Program

 50years

CELEBRATE • INNOVATE • EDUCATE
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Southern District of Florida

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

22-cv-61632

ARCHER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP,

ARCHER GROWTH FUND,

HDR MANAGEMENT LLC, AND

SILVERMOON GROUP, LLC

ARCHER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

GREGORY R. BOCKIN

1617 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD., SUITE 520

PHILADELPHIA, PA. 19103

Case 0:22-cv-61632-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

22-cv-61632

0.00

Case 0:22-cv-61632-AHS Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Bally Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2007 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RobertC. Caller, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that, to my knowledge:

 

1.               The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.

 

Date:  February 14,2008

 
| /s/Robert C. Caller                                             |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Robert C. Caller                                                |
| Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)                    |

 

----
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

     The undersigned, Clifford Brown, Chief Financial Officer of American
Stellar Energy Inc. (Formerly Merchantpark Communications Inc.). (the
"Company"), does hereby 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 Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2004 (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 statement this 14
day of December 2005.

                                   By:  /s/ Clifford Brown
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Clifford Brown
                                         Chief Financial Officer
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CV-61602-SMITH/REID

BLUE CHIP ALLIANCE, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CHETU, INC., 

Defendant. 

/ 

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO ALLOW DEPOSITION OF ATMA RAM TRIPATHI 

BEYOND DISCOVERY DEADLINE

This cause is before the Court on the Parties’ Joint Motion to Allow the Deposition of Atma

Ram Tripathi Beyond the Discovery Deadline. [ECF No. 77]. The Court has reviewed the Motion 

and the record. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The Deposition of Atma Ram Tripathi may be taken beyond the discovery deadline; 

2. The deposition of Mr. Tripathi shall take place at the first available mutually agreeable date 

after September 29, 2023;

3. It shall be the sole burden of Chetu to seek updates on availability from Mr. Tripathi and 

to notify Blue Chip of the same within twenty-four (24) hours of receiving an available 

date for his deposition;

4. Absent extraordinary circumstances, which Mr. Tripathi must personally show, the 

deposition shall take place on or before November 30, 2023. Unless the parties agree in 

writing to the contrary, Blue Chip shall be provided at least seven days’ notice prior to the 

deposition being taken on the agreed date.

Case 0:22-cv-61602-RS Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

SIGNED this 2nd day of October, 2023.

LISETTE M. REID

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith; and

All Counsel of Record 

Case 0:22-cv-61602-RS Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2023 Page 2 of 2
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. ER00-2566-000]

Take notice that on May 19, 2000, New England Power Company (NEP), Massachusetts Electric Company (MECO) and The Narragansett Electric Company (Narragansett) tendered for filing: (i) an amended and restated open access transmission tariff—New England Power Company, FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 9 (Tariff No. 9); (ii) amendments to NEP's Tariff No. 9 Network Integration Transmission Service Agreements with MECO, Narragansett and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority; (iii) notices of succession for certain rate schedules under which the operating companies of Eastern Utilities Associates formerly provided service; and (iv) notices of cancellation for certain rate schedules.

These filings were made in connection with the consummation of the merger of National Grid USA (formerly known as New England Electric System) with Eastern Utilities Associates, and the subsequent consummation of the mergers and consolidations of the respective operating companies of the two systems.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest 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). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before June 9, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine 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                           ( print page 35917)                        file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).                

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-14145  Filed 6-5-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### § 402.14 Operational surcharges—after postponements.

| Item | Column 1 Place in Montreal-Lake Ontario | Column 2 Period after clearance date | Column 3 Amount ($) (5 locks)1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (a) | Cape Vincent (downbound) or Cape Saint-Michel (upbound): | | |
| | (1) If the postponement is for 24 hours | (*a*) 24 hours or more but less than 36 hours | 20,000 |
| | | (*b*) 36 hours or more but less than 48 hours | 40,000 |
| | | (*c*) 48 hours or more but less than 72 hours | 60,000 |
| | | (*d*) 72 hours or more but less than 96 hours | 80,000 |
| | (2) If the postponement is for 48 hours | (*a*) 48 hours or more but less than 56 hours | 20,000 |
| | | (*b*) 56 hours or more but less than 64 hours | 40,000 |
| | | (*c*) 64 hours or more but less than 72 hours | 60,000 |
| | | (*d*) 72 hours or more but less than 96 hours | 80,000 |
| | (3) If the postponement is for 72 hours | (*a*) 72 hours or more but less than 78 hours | 20,000 |
| | | (*b*) 78 hours or more but less than 84 hours | 40,000 |
| | | (*c*) 84 hours or more but less than 90 hours | 60,000 |
| | | (*d*) 90 hours or more but less than 96 hours | 80,000 |
| (b) | Port, dock or wharf within St. Lambert—Iroquois lock segment: | | |
| | (1) If the postponement is for 24 hours | (*a*) 24 hours or more but less than 48 hours | n/a |
| | | (*b*) 48 hours or more but less than 60 hours | 20,000 |
| | | (*c*) 60 hours or more but less than 72 hours | 40,000 |
| | | (*d*) 72 hours or more but less than 96 hours | 60,000 |
| | (2) If the postponement is for 48 hours | (*a*) 48 hours or more but less than 72 hours | n/a |
| | | (*b*) 72 hours or more but less than 80 hours | 20,000 |
| | | (*c*) 80 hours or more but less than 88 hours | 40,000 |
| | | (*d*) 88 hours or more but less than 96 hours | 60,000 |
| | (3) If the postponement is for 72 hours or more | (*a*) 72 hours or more but less than 96 hours | n/a |
| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 Prorated on a per-lock basis. | | | |

[[66 FR 15329](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/66-FR-15329), Mar. 16, 2001. Redesignated and amended at [74 FR 10679](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/74-FR-10679), Mar. 12, 2009, and further redesignated at [79 FR 13253](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/79-FR-13253), Mar. 10, 2014, and at [81 FR 14391](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/81-FR-14391), Mar. 17, 2016]
Argued and submitted October 21, 1994,

affirmed February 22, 1995

#### OREGONIANS IN ACTION, *Petitioner, v.*LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, and Deschutes County, *Respondents,*ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE LAND USE IN DESCHUTES COUNTY, 1000 Friends of Oregon, and Howard Paine, *Respondents below.*

(CA A81525)

889 P2d 1370

Dorothy S. Cofield argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the brief was David B. Smith.

Stephanie L. Striffler, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Land Conservation and Development Commission. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

No appearance for respondent Deschutes County.

Before Riggs, Presiding Judge,* Richardson, Chief Judge, and Leeson, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*

 Riggs, P. J., *vice*Rossman, P. J., retired.

*255PER CURIAM

Petitioner Oregonians in Action seeks review of LCDC’s periodic review order for Deschutes County. In its first assignment, petitioner contends that LCDC erred by refusing to consider certain objections advanced by petitioner, on the ground that petitioner had not presented the corresponding issues to the county specifically enough to satisfy *former*ORS 197.643(3)(c) and OAR 660-19-080(3)(c). Petitioner maintains that LCDC wrongly imported the assertedly more stringent preservation requirements of ORS 197.763 into those provisions. Even assuming petitioner’s premises, we agree with LCDC that the relevant aspects of petitioner’s presentation before the county were so undifferentiated as to amount to not raising the issues in question at all. Only if the preservation requirement in *former*ORS 197.643 and LCDC’s regulatory provision were construed as requiring *no*particularization could petitioner’s argument succeed, and such a construction would convert the provisions into total *non-sequiturs.*

We reject petitioner’s first assignment. We also reject petitioner’s second assignment, which does not warrant discussion.

Affirmed.
Opinion issued July 23, 2024

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 2 3 - 00 77 8 - CV

——————————— IN THE INTEREST OF C. A . Q.A ., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 3 11 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 20 22 - 11948
MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 2 8 , 2023 , appellant, Luis Quezada , filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s May 9 , 2023 final judgment in the suit to adjudicate parentage filed by appellee, Jennifer Arevalo . On Ju ly 5 , 2024, appellant filed a “Motion to Dismiss Appeal.” In h is motion, appellant stated that the parties had “reached a written agreement” regarding the issues presented in the appeal. Pursuant to that agreement, appellant requested that the Court dismiss the appeal.2

No other party has filed a notice of appeal, and no opinion has issued. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 42.1(a)(2), (c). Appellant’s motion does not include a certificate of conference stating that appellant conferred, or made a reasonable attempt to confer, with appellee regarding the relief requested in the motion. See T EX . R. A PP . P
. 10.1(a)(5). However, more than ten days have passed , and no party has expressed opposition to appellant’s motion. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 10.3(a)(2). Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas

- Molloy, and Farris
.