alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>




                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Michigan Community Bancorp Limited,
(the "Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as amended
(the "Report"), I, Frank D. Blowers, Principal Financial Officer of the
Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(3) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(4) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/      Frank D. Blowers
   ---------------------------------
         Frank D. Blowers
         Principal Financial Officer
         June 18, 2003
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-428-CR

WILLIAM SMITH APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 362ND DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered AAppellant’s Withdrawal Of Notice Of Appeal.@ The 

motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we 

received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

DELIVERED: March 10, 2011
§ 182.60 Corrective action plans. ( a ) *Violations requiring a corrective action plan.* If CMS determines a provider's noncompliance with the requirements of this part continues after a warning notice, a corrective action plan may be required. A violation may include, but is not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) A provider's failure to make public its cash price information required by § 182.40.
( 2 ) A provider's failure to make public its cash price information in the form and manner required under § 182.40.
( b ) *Notice of violation.* CMS may request that a provider submit and comply with a corrective action plan, specified in a notice of violation issued by CMS to a provider.
( c ) *Compliance with corrective action plan requests and corrective actions.* ( 1 ) A provider required to submit a corrective action plan must do so, in the form and manner, and by the deadline, specified in the notice of violation issued by CMS to the provider, and must comply with the requirements of the corrective action plan approved by CMS.
( 2 ) A provider's corrective action plan must specify elements including, but not limited to: ( i ) The corrective actions or processes the provider will take to address the deficiency or deficiencies identified by CMS.
( ii ) The timeframe by which the provider will complete the corrective action.
( 3 ) A corrective action plan is subject to CMS review and approval.
( 4 ) After CMS' review and approval of a provider's corrective action plan, CMS may monitor and evaluate the provider's compliance with the corrective actions specified in the corrective action plan.
( d ) *Noncompliance with corrective action plan requests and requirements.* ( 1 ) A provider's failure to respond to CMS' request to submit a corrective action plan includes failure to submit a corrective action plan in the form, manner, or by the deadline, specified in a notice of violation issued by CMS to the provider.
( 2 ) A provider's failure to comply with the requirements of a corrective action plan includes failure to correct violation(s) within the specified timeframes.
#### JOHN D. JOHNSON, Respondent, v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA, a Corporation, Appellant.

(196 N. W. 553.)

Appeal and error — judgment not rendered on reversal where Hiere is some evidence tending- to support verdict.

Where there is some evidence tending to establish plaintiff’s ease, the Supreme Court, in reversing judgment based on verdict for plaintiff because ■of insufficiency of evidence to sustain verdict, will not render judgment for •defendant notwithstanding the verdict, but will remand the cause for a new trial.

Appeal and Error, 4 C. J. § 3240 p. 1200 n. 31.

Opinion filed December 27, 1923.

Rehearing denied December 27, 1923.

Appeal from the District Court of Hettinger County, *Lemblce,*J.

Defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, appeals.

Reversed.

*Sullivan, Hanley & Sullivan,*for appellant.

*Jacobsen & Murray,*for respondent.

Nuessee, J.

This is an action to recover on account of certain policies of insurance against crop failure. Tbe plaintiff in his complaint sets out four different causes of action: the first, on account of a policy of insurance issued to him; the second, on account of a policy issued to one Lorenz Wolf and assigned to the plaintiff; and the fourth, on account of a policy of insurance issued to one Joseph Steiner and assigned to the plaintiff. At the opening of the .case the plaintiff moved to strike out the third cause of action without prejudice, which motion was granted.

The pleadings in the various causes of action and the issues as raised thereby are in ’all essential respects identical with those in the companion case of Rokusek v. National Union F. Ins. Co. heretofore decided, ante, 123, 195 N. W. 300, excepting insofar as they necessarily *485differ by reason of the policies in question having been issued to different persons covering different crops and for different amounts.

At the close of the plaintiff’s case, and again at the close of the whole case, the defendant moved for a directed verdict. No ruling was made upon such motion. Plaintiff had a verdict. Judgment was entered thereon. No motion for a new trial was made, nor was there a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The ease is here on appeal from the judgment.

The principles of law announced in the Rokusek Case, supra, are applicable in this case and require a reversal of the judgment. The evidence in the case, however, distinguishes it from the Rokusek Case in this; in that case we held as a matter of law that no fraud was established as regards the settlement. In this case, however, we are not prepared to say that there was no evidence, from which such fraud could be found. Hence, defendant is not entitled to judgment notwithstanding- the verdict, but a new trial will be ordered.

Biruzell, Christianson, and Johnson, JJ., and Cooley, Dist. J., concur.

Mr. Chief Justice Bronson, being disqualified, did not participate, Honorable Chas. M. Cooley of tbe First Judicial District, sitting in his stead.
§ 2522.730 How and when do I submit my evaluation to the Corporation? Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 46034 , May 28, 2024.
Cross Reference
Link to a correction published at 89 FR 66615 , Aug. 16, 2024.
( a ) If you are an existing grantee recompeting for AmeriCorps funds for the first time, you must submit a summary of your evaluation efforts or plan to date, and a copy of any evaluation that has been completed, as part of your application for funding.
( b ) If you again compete for AmeriCorps funding after a second three-year grant cycle, you must submit the completed evaluation with your application for funding.
[70 FR 39603, July 8, 2005]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEnabling Long-Duration Lunar Equatorial Operations With Thermal Wadi InfrastructureLong duration missions on the Moon s equator must survive lunar nights. With 350 hr of cryogenic temperatures, lunar nights present a challenge to robotic survival. Insulation is imperfect, so it is not possible to passively contain enough heat to stay warm through the night. Components that enable mobility, environmental sensing and solar power generation must be exposed, and they leak heat. Small, lightweight rovers cannot store enough energy to warm components throughout the night without some external source of heat or power. Thermal wadis, however, can act as external heat sources to keep robots warm through the lunar night. Electrical power can also be provided to rovers during the night from batteries stored in the ground beside wadis. Buried batteries can be warmed by the wadi s heat. Results from analysis of the interaction between a rover and a wadi are presented. A detailed three-dimensional (3D) thermal model and an easily configurable two-dimensional (2D) thermal model are used for analysis.Document ID20110007929Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsJones, Heather L.*(Carnegie-Mellon Univ. Pittsburgh, PA, United States)*Thornton, John P.*(Carnegie-Mellon Univ. Pittsburgh, PA, United States)*Balasubramaniam, Ramaswamy*(National Center for Space Exploration Research on Fluids and Combustion Cleveland, OH, United States)*Gokoglu, Suleyman, A.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Sacksteder, Kurt R.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Whittaker, William L.*(Carnegie-Mellon Univ. Pittsburgh, PA, United States)*Date AcquiredAugust 25, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 2011Subject CategorySpace ProcessingReport/Patent NumberAIAA Paper 2011-0703NASA/TM-2011-216994E-17633Meeting InformationMeeting: 49th Aerospace Sciences MeetingLocation: Orlando, FLCountry: United StatesStart Date: January 4, 2011End Date: January 7, 2011Sponsors:American Inst. of Aeronautics and AstronauticsFunding Number(s)WBS: WBS 075585.01.06.01.03.03Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20110007929.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Presidential Documents

67429 

Federal Register 

Vol. 71, No. 225 

Wednesday, November 22, 2006 

Title 3— 

The President 

Order of November 17, 2006 

Regarding the Proposed Merger of Alcatel and Lucnet Technologies, Inc. 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including section 721 of the Defense 

Production Act of 1950 (section 721), 50 U.S.C. App. 2170, 

Section 1. Findings. 

I hereby make the following findings: 

(1) there is credible evidence that leads me to believe that Alcatel, a societe 

anonyme organized under the laws of France, through exercising control 

of Lucent Technologies, Inc. (Lucent), a corporation organized under the 

laws of the State of Delaware, might take action that threatens to impair 

the national security of the United States; and 

(2) provisions of law, other than section 721 and the International Emergency 

Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701et seq.), do not in my judgment provide 

adequate and appropriate authority for me to protect the national security 

in this matter. 

Sec 2. Actions Ordered and Authorized. 

On the basis of the findings set forth in section 1 of this order and pursuant 

to my authority under applicable law, including section 721, I hereby order 

that: 

(1) any merger of Lucent and Alcatel that does not meet the following 

conditions within the timeframes specified is prohibited: 

(a) Lucent, Alcatel, and Alcatel USA Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of 

Alcatel, execute, on or before the closing date of the transaction, a National 

Security Agreement (NSA) with the Departments of Defense (DOD), Justice, 

Commerce, and Homeland Security, that is materially identical to the draft 

NSA negotiated with those agencies as of November 6, 2006; 

(b) Lucent and Alcatel execute, by a date to be determined by the Secretary 

of Defense, a Special Security Agreement (SSA) with the DOD that is materially identical to the draft SSA negotiated with the DOD as of November 

6, 2006; and 

(c) the Secure Subsidiary, which is defined in the draft SSA and which 

will be a subsidiary of Lucent, execute the two documents described in 

(a) and (b) above, by a date to be determined by the Secretary of Defense; 

(2) the Attorney General is authorized to take any steps necessary to enforce 

this order. 

Sec 3. Reservation. 

I hereby reserve my authority until such time as the NSA and SSA are 

executed as required by this order, or, if the NSA and SSA are not so 

executed, until such time as the prohibition of the merger required by 

this order has been fully enforced, to issue further orders with respect 

to the parties as shall in my judgment be necessary to protect the national 

security. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PRESDOC

67430 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 22, 2006 / Presidential Documents 

Sec 4. Publication. 

This order shall be published in the Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

November 17, 2006. 

[FR Doc. 06–9381 

Filed 11–21–06; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PRESDOCGWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
UNITE D STATE S O FAMERIC A DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C . . ' ••• ' I ' ' U I'^' i , 1 - , rA'''"' • •? ',':

TRAVE LGROUP , INC. , D/B/ A REPUBLI C AI RTRAVE L AND SCO T SPENCE R AIRLIF T GROUP , INC . AND RICHAR D BERNAR D Unauthorize dAi r

Transportation , Unfai r an dDeceptiv e Practice s an dUnfai r

Method s o f

Competition , an d Violation s o f

Publi c Charte r

Rule s EXPRES S ON E INTERNATIONAL , INC . Unfai r an dDeceptiv e Practice s an dUnfai r Method s o f Competition , an dViolation s o f Publi c Charte r

Rule s Enforcemen t

Proceedin g DOT-OST-1995-27 2 formerl y Docke t 4923 3

STATU S REPOR T Th e Offic e of

th e Assistan t

Genera l Counse l fo r

Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an d Proceeding s ("Enforcemen t Office") , pursuan t

t o You r Honor' s Marc h 22 , 2006 , Orde r stayin g this proceeding , file s thi s repor t detailin g th e curren t

statu s o f this proceedin g and settlemen t negotiations . Th e Departmen t

ha s no t rule do n th e outstandin g motion s file db y Respondent s an doppose db y th e Enforcemen t Offic e i n Ascen dAviatio n Group , Docke t OST-2004

- 17486 .Ther e hav e bee n n o further settlemen t

discussions . Date : Marc h 25 , 2011 . Respectfull y submitted . tSmuel Podberesky Assistan t Genera l Counse l for Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an dProceeding s Dayto n Lehman , Jr . Deputy Assistan t

Genera l Counse l for Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an dProceeding s Willia mJ . Wagne r

J ) Q Senio r Trial Attorne y Unite dState s Departmen t of Transportatio n Offic e of Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an dProceeding s 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Roo m96-429 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-934 2 FAX : 202-366-715 2Docke t No . DOT-OST-1995-27 2 I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s 25t

h da y of March , 2011 , atru e an dcorrec t cop y o f th e foregoin g Statu s Repor

t wa s serve di

n th e followin g manne r

t o th e following : Original U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Docke t Operations , M-3 0 Wes t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mW12-14 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D.C . 2059 0 B y Personal Service Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A Yode r Chie f Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

of Transportatio n Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mE J 2-32 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 TEL : (202 ) 366-214 2 FAX : (202 ) 366-753 6 B v Firs t Clas s Mai l Sco t Spence r SB D Aircraf

t Service s 25 5 S Lelan dNorto n Wa y Sa mBernardino , C A 9240 8
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RYAN STANFORD LEE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 500 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of December, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JANUARY
1, 1999 CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET, CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED INCOME
STATEMENT FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 1, 1999 AND NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH COMBINED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-1999
<CASH>                                          77,282<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  145,352
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,572
<INVENTORY>                                    142,050
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               454,653
<PP&E>                                         682,968
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,252,924
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          289,885
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        94,882
<OTHER-SE>                                     802,190
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,252,924
<SALES>                                        294,678
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               294,678
<CGS>                                          221,680
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  221,680
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               171,475
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (97,314)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (40,191)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (57,123)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (57,123)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.60)
<FN>
<F1>Item consists of cash plus $64 million of restricted cash.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
§ 2507.9 Reasons for withholding some records. ( a ) AmeriCorps records will be made available to the public unless it determines that such records should be withheld from disclosure under subsection 552(b) of the Act and/or in accordance with this part. Section 552(b) of the FOIA contains nine exemptions to the mandatory disclosure of records.
( b ) AmeriCorps will: ( 1 ) Withhold information under the FOIA only if disclosure is prohibited by law or it reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption.
( 2 ) Consider whether partial disclosure of information is possible whenever it determines that a full disclosure of a requested record is not possible.
( 3 ) Take reasonable steps necessary to segregate and release nonexempt information.
( 4 ) Note in the record and response letter the basis for a redaction when it withholds information in a record, or an entire record.
( c ) To the extent it properly can under an exemption, AmeriCorps will withhold information it obtains from any submitter that gave it to the agency in reliance on a statutory or regulatory provision for confidentiality. This section does not authorize the giving of any pledge of confidentiality by any officer or employee of AmeriCorps.
( d ) The deliberative process privilege of Exemption 5 of the FOIA will not apply to records created 25 years or more before the date when the records were requested.
#### Andrew Wytoski, appellant, v. August Kiolbassa, appellee.

Filed May 4, 1914.

No. 17,594.

Appeal: Bill of Exceptions: Affidavits. Affidavits used in district court upon the hearing of a motion and not preserved in a bill of exceptions will not be considered on appeal.

Appeal from the district court for Nance county: George H. Thomas, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*T. T. Bell,*for appellant.

*J. R. Shields*and W. *L. Rose, contra.*

Hamer, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing an appeal of plaintiff from' a judgment of the county court which dismissed his action.

The judgment in the county court was rendered on February 2, 1910. An appeal bond was duly filed, and a transcript prepared and filed in the district court' on March 3, 1910. No further proceedings were taken until December 5, 1911. A motion was then filed by defendant to dismiss the appeal on account of the failure of plaintiff to file his petition within 20 days from the filing of the transcript, and a showing that no petition had ever been filed. On December 14, 1911, an order was made upon the plaintiff to show cause' by December 24, 1911, why the motion for dismissal should not be sustained. On December 21, plaintiff moved for leave to file his petition. He filed his own affidavit and that of his attorney in support of his motion. These affidavits are not preserved by a bill of exceptions, and therefore cannot be considered. It is not shown that the court has abused its discretion. The judgment of the district court is therefore

Affirmed.