alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### SERVED: March 24, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASI-IINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF ST ARJET, INC. DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-1115 (Civil Penalty Action)

ORDER REASSIGNING PROCEEDING Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin has transferred to the Food and Drug Administration. Accordingly, this proceeding is hereby reassigned from Judge Goodwin to Administrative Law Judge Douglas M. Rawald. Any dates set for hearing or prehearing conference are suspended until further notice. All other orders remain in full force and effect absent further order. SO ORDERED.

Attachment-Service ListSERVICE LIST - BY 

### U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1 ONE COPY 

### Pekka Karu, President/Director ofOperations Starjet, Inc., Respondent 

### 26 Washington Blvd., 211d 

### Floor Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 TEL: 310-301-9325 FAX:.J 10-301-1556 LisaJ. Toscano, Complainant's Counsel 

### Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-7 Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region P. 0. 

### Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-7110 FAX: 310-725-6816 The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald,Administrative Law Judge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 Docket No. FAA-2014-1115 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI000, Washington, DC 2059I; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### 3
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"21-2033: KRISTOF v. AIR FORCE [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"CPs71J62BD\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-23-2023-21-2033-kristof-v-air-force-opinion-21-2033-opinion-2-23-2023_2085010\/\">21-2033: KRISTOF v. AIR FORCE [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-23-2023-21-2033-kristof-v-air-force-opinion-21-2033-opinion-2-23-2023_2085010\/embed\/#?secret=CPs71J62BD\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-2033: KRISTOF v. AIR FORCE [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"CPs71J62BD\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: KRISTOF v. AIR FORCE [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-2033 Origin: MSPB Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### § 300-80.7 How long is the duration of test programs?

The duration of a test program is up to four years from the date of authorization unless terminated prior to that time by the Administrator of General Services. The agency conducting a test program may also terminate the test program at any time by providing written notice of the termination to the Administrator of General Services. The Administrator of General Services may grant test program extensions of up to an additional four years (see § 300-80.8).

[FTR Amdt. 2010-03, 75 FR 58330, Sept. 24, 2010]
###### Editorial Note on [Part 1](/current/title-47/part-1?toc=1)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at [63 FR 54077](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/63-FR-54077), Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1105 Schedule of charges for applications and other filings for the wireline competition services.

Table 1 to [§ 1.1105](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-1.1105)

| Wireline competition services | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Type of application | Payment type code | Fee amount |
| Domestic 214 Applications—Part 63, Transfers of Control | CDU | $1,375 |
| Domestic 214 Applications—Special Temporary Authority | CDV | 755 |
| Domestic 214 Applications—Part 63 Discontinuances (Non-Standard Review) (Technology Transition Filings Subject to Section 63.71 (f) (2) (i) or Not Subject to Streamlined Automatic Grant, and Filings From Dominant Carriers Subject to 60-Day Automatic Grant | CDW | 1,375 |
| Domestic 214 Applications—Part 63 Discontinuances (Standard Streamlined Review) (All Other Domestic 214 Discontinuance Filings) | CDX | 375 |
| VoIP Numbering | CDY | 1,485 |
| Standard Tariff Filing | CQK | 1,040 |
| Complex Tariff Filing (annual access charge tariffs, new or restructured rate plans) (Large—all price cap LECs and entities involving more than 100 LECs) | CQL | 7,300 |
| Complex Tariff Filing (annual access charge tariffs, new or restructured rate plans) (Small—other entities) | CQM | 3,650 |
| Application for Special Permission for Waiver of Tariff Rules | CQN | 420 |
| Waiver of Accounting Rules | CQP | 4,925 |
| Universal Service Fund Auction (combined long-form and short-form fee, paid only by winning bidder) | CQQ | 3,310 |

[[88 FR 6171](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/88-FR-6171), Jan. 31, 2023]
120P16

#### State v. Bobby Frederick Walls, Jr.

Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for PDR (COA15-289)

Denied
§ 101.1112 Definitions. ( a ) *Scope.* The definitions in this section apply to §§ 101.1101 through 101.1112, unless otherwise specified in those sections.
( b ) *Very small business.* A very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million.
( c ) *Small business.* A small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of more than $15 million but not more than $40 million.
( d ) *Entrepreneur.* An entrepreneur is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of more than $40 million but not more than $75 million.
[67 FR 46380, July 9, 2002, as amended at 68 FR 43002, July 21, 2003]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 11, 2020

p1208

Order 

Clerk

December 11, 2020

162111 & (21)

In re PETITION OF WAYNE COUNTY

TREASURER FOR FORECLOSURE.

_________________________________________

WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 162111

COA: 353846

Wayne CC: 17-008808-CH

THOMAS P. GALIEOTE, DIANE MARIE

GALIEOTE, and INTERSTATE EQUITIES, LLC,

Respondents-Appellants,

and

HOME TEAM HOLDINGS, INC.,

Intervening Party-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the September 3, 2020 order of the Court of Appeals 

is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question 

presented should be reviewed by this Court.
No. 11-5220.

#### Frazier *v.*Clements, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Civ. No. 10937.

First Appellate District, Division Two.

November 7, 1938.]

#### CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA, Appellant, v. VENTURA COUNTY STAR, INC., et al., Respondents.

*42Stacy C. Bates, Assistant City Attorney, for Appellant.

Hillyer & Boldman for Bespondents.

NOURSE, P. J.

TJpon appropriate pleadings, and by stipulation of the parties, there was submitted to the trial court the single question “whether that portion of the charter of the City of San Buenaventura (Stats. 1933, p. 2880) which provides that the contract for city advertising must ‘be awarded to the responsible bidder submitting the lowest bid on the basis of the *bona fide*subscription list of paying subscribers of said publication within the city limits’, means that the bidder submitting the lowest bid must be determined solely by the ratio which the amount of the bid bears to the number of paying subscribers of the newspaper within the city limits”.

The trial court rendered its judgment that advertising contracts should be awarded on that basis “after due investigation by the City Council of said *bona fide*subscription list of paying subscribers”, and that the responsibility of the bidder in each case must be determined by the city council after due investigation.

The city’s appeal from the judgment does not present any error. It raises the single question whether the trial court’s interpretation of the charter provision is sound in law. We are in full accord with that interpretation. Every phrase and every expression of the charter provision must be given its meaning. We cannot eliminate and we cannot add to the legislative enactment. When it declares that the “basis” of the award shall be “the *bona fide*subscription list -of paying subscribers of said publication within the city limits” it means that that shall be the basis of the award, not that the individual subscribers shall be investigated for the purpose of determining whether they are registered voters, citizens or foreigners, or property owners. The clear purpose of the provision is to insure the widest circulation of the public notices at the lowest cost to the city. The ratio of the bid to the *bona fide*subscribers is the method *43which the charter framers deemed most expedient to accomplish that purpose.

The judgment is affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Spence, J., concurred.
No. 11-1102.

#### Merlan *v.*Holder, Attorney General.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM HELPMATE
ROBOTICS FORM 10KSB FOR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          807278
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   687417
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (80000)
<INVENTORY>                                     884131
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2314991
<PP&E>                                         4366894
<DEPRECIATION>                               (2382661)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4380808
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2182922
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      16964504
<OTHER-SE>                                   (17333600)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4380808
<SALES>                                        1256104
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3647509
<CGS>                                           764565
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2133306
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3481186
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (20000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (256488)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (2243471)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (2243471)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"17-2088: MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. RESEARCH CORPORATION TECH. [OPINION], Precedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"alYTbXQ0wP\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/2-01-2019-17-2088-mylan-pharmaceuticals-inc-v-research-corporation-tech-opinion-precedential-17-2088-opinion-2-1-2019\/\">17-2088: MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. RESEARCH CORPORATION TECH. [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/2-01-2019-17-2088-mylan-pharmaceuticals-inc-v-research-corporation-tech-opinion-precedential-17-2088-opinion-2-1-2019\/embed\/#?secret=alYTbXQ0wP\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“17-2088: MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. RESEARCH CORPORATION TECH. [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"alYTbXQ0wP\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. RESEARCH CORPORATION TECH. [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 17-2088 Origin: PTO Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2020-1924: Nika Technologies, Inc. v. US - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"uWK0oflJlK\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-09-2020-2020-1924-nika-technologies-inc-v-us-audio-uploaded\/\">2020-1924: Nika Technologies, Inc. v. US<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-09-2020-2020-1924-nika-technologies-inc-v-us-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=uWK0oflJlK\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2020-1924: Nika Technologies, Inc. v. US” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"uWK0oflJlK\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Nika Technologies, Inc. v. US (mp3) Appeal Number: 2020-1924 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4428

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans

Affairs to maintain the existing capacity of the Department of Veterans

Affairs to provide specialized services to disabled veterans.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 16, 1994

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to maintain the existing capacity of the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide

specialized services to disabled veterans.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS SPECIAL4 IZED TREATMENT CAPACITIES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—(1) Chapter 73 of title 38, United

6 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 7318

7 the following new section:
2

•HR 4428 IH

1 ‘‘§ 7319. Specialized treatment services: preservation

2 of Department capacities

3 ‘‘(a) The Secretary shall ensure that the Department

4 maintains the capacity to provide for the specialized treat5 ment and rehabilitative needs of disabled veterans (includ6 ing veterans with spinal cord dysfunction, blindness, and

7 mental illness) within distinct programs or facilities of the

8 Department that are dedicated to the specialized needs of

9 those veterans in a manner that affords those veterans

10 reasonable access to care and services for those specialized

11 needs.

12 ‘‘(b) The Secretary shall ensure that overall capacity

13 of the Department to provide such specialized services is

14 not reduced below the capacity of the Department, nation15 wide, to provide those services, as of the date of the enact16 ment of this section. Nothing in this section precludes the

17 Secretary from expanding the number or type of facilities

18 or programs that provide treatment and rehabilitation

19 services for the specialized needs of such veterans, includ20 ing provision of specialized services on an outpatient

21 basis.’’.

22 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

23 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting

24 after the item relating to section 7318 the following new

25 item:

‘‘7319. Specialized treatment services: preservation of Department capacities.’’.
3

•HR 4428 IH

Æ
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.926 Application processing; initial procedures.

Applications are assigned file numbers and service codes in order to facilitate processing. Assignment of a file number to an application is for administrative convenience and does not constitute a determination that the application is acceptable for filing. Purpose and service codes appear on the Commission forms.

[63 FR 68927, Dec. 14, 1998]
**Exhibit 4(c).9.2**    1-3 Strand London WC2N 5EH  John GrantSir John Parker FREngThe MalthouseChairmanManor Lane Claverdonjohn.parker@ngrid.comWarwickshireDirect tel+44 (0)20 7004 3010CV35 8NHDirect fax+44 (0)20 7004 3012 Mobile+44 (0)7831 496201    www.nationalgrid.com  7 March 2006 Our Reference TJP/NED/PD/03/06**Retirement as chairman of Remuneration Committee**This letter confirms your retirement as chairman of the Remuneration Committee with effect from 1March 2006.I would also confirm that your annual retainer fee of £35,000 per annum and your Board attendancefees of £1,500 for meetings in your country of residence and £3,000 for each overseas meeting willcontinue until you leave the Board following the 2006 Annual General Meeting.On a personal note I would once again like to thank you for your work as chairman of theRemuneration Committee.Yours sincerely/s/ Sir John Parker    National Grid plcRegistered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EHRegistered in England and Wales, No 4031152
# Comments on: 18-1798: TQ DELTA, LLC v. DISH NETWORK LLC [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential