alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

-1- 

WILKE,FLEURY,HOFFELT,

GOULD &BIRNEY,LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAC RAMENTO STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL

WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD & BIRNEY, LLP 

THOMAS G. REDMON (SBN 047090) 

DANIEL L. BAXTER (SBN 203862) 

400 Capitol Mall, Twenty-Second Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 441-2430 

Facsimile: (916) 442-6664 

Attorneys for Defendant 

WEST SALEM MACHINERY CO., INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Nevada Railroad Materials, LLC, a 

California limited liability company; 

Nevada Railroad Materials, Inc., a Nevada 

corporation (herein jointly known as 

"NRM"), 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

West Salem Machinery Co., Inc. (herein 

known as "WSM"), 

Defendant. 

No. CIV. S-04-1930 FCD DAD 

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, by and through their 

undersigned attorneys, that Plaintiffs’ Complaint, shall be dismissed with prejudice and on the 

merits but without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party, and that judgment of dismissal with 

prejudice and on the merits may be entered hereon pursuant hereto without further notice. 

Dated: March 27. 2006 

 /s/_______________________________________

 DALE W, MAHON 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

 NEVADA RAILROAD MATERIALS, INC., etc. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:04-cv-01930-FCD-DAD Document 27 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

-2- 

WILKE,FLEURY,HOFFELT,

GOULD &BIRNEY,LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAC RAMENTO STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL

Dated: March 28, 2006 

 /s/________________________________________

 THOMAS G. REDMON 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 WEST SALEM MACHINERY COMPANY, INC. 

IT IS SO ORDERED: 

Dated: March 30, 2006 

 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case 2:04-cv-01930-FCD-DAD Document 27 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 on Form 10-K of OpenTV Corp. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James J. Ackerman, Chief Executive 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 to my knowledge:



| | 1. |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    James J. AckermanName: James J. Ackerman Title: Chief Executive Officer




Dated: April 11,
2003



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to OpenTV Corp. and will be retained by OpenTV Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2006052EN.01000501.xml

| 2.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/5

---

Final report of the hearing officer in case COMP/M.3099 — Areva/Urenco

(pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision (2001/462/EC, ECSC) of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision (2001/462/EC, ECSC) of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2006/C 52/05)

On 8 and 26 April 2004, the Commission received a joint referral request from the authorities of France, Sweden and Germany, pursuant to Article 22 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (the ‘Merger Regulation’), to investigate a proposed concentration by which the undertaking Société de participations du Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique SA (‘Areva’), acquires within the meaning of Article 3 (1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Enrichment Technology Company Limited (‘ETC’), formerly solely controlled by the undertaking Urenco Limited (‘Urenco’), by way of purchase of shares.

Upon examination of the evidence submitted by the referring Member States and the parties to the proposed concentration and after conducting a market investigation, the Commission concluded that the concentration raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and decided to initiate proceedings under Article 6 (1)(c) of the Merger Regulation on 22 June 2004.

Upon the parties' request of 22 June 2004, a review of key documents was provided in accordance with the best practices on the conduct of EC merger control proceedings on 14 July 2004.

On 20 August 2004 the parties offered commitments that modified the original concentration plan, some aspects of which were amended following the market test conducted by the Commission. Final commitments were submitted on 3 September 2004. On the basis of these undertakings the relevant Commission service considered that the serious doubts had been removed. Accordingly no statement of objections was sent to the parties. No queries were raised before the Hearing Officer by the parties or other companies as to the market test. The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.

Brussels, 27 September 2004.

Karen WILLIAMS

---
# National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

## Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Impacts

United States Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Ocean Service

Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Link Disclaimer | USA.gov
- Bureau of the Fiscal Service
- Payment Information Repository
- Frequently Asked Questions

# Frequently Asked Questions

            Yes. PIR follows applicable federal laws and regulations for information technology (IT) systems security, including the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA).          

            PIR works only with the most current version of Internet Explorer. This is another aspect of keeping PIR secure.          

            PIR data is a snapshot of payments that agencies made as of a specific point in time. It only shows information about the payment. It does not show what happened to that payment.          

            Payment information pulled from U.S. Treasury systems serves as the basis of PIR reports.To give us insight into payment patterns, PIR also gets summary information from various other sources.          

            Yes. NTDOs must report all payments using the Standard Reporting Format (SRF).The SRF has strict deadlines for reporting payments. See the Standard Reporting Format page for deadlines, data to report, and how to get a copy of the SRF.          

			  No. PIR is only a system for reporting. 

You must use CARS to reclassify TAS/BETC information.

Last modified 04/28/20
1

 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 WASHINGTON DC 20460

 

June 3, 2011

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Supporting Documentation for Camelina Direct Final Rulemaking

FROM: Sharyn Lie, Office of Transportation and Air Quality

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-XXX

The following documents were used to support the calculations presented in the Camelina 

Direct Final Rulemaking and associated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

 “Final Camelina Calculations for Docket.xls”

o This document contains information on the assumptions, conversion 

factors, yields, energy use, GHG emission, and net returns used in the 

camelina Direct Final Rule. 

o N20 emissions included in “N2O” tab are taken from the “N2O Summary” 

tab of the “Final Camelina N2O Calculations for Docket.xls” described 

below. 

o Camelina fertilizer application rates, energy use, and yields are taken from 

the literature search, which are summarized in the “lit review” tab and 

described in the Federal Register Notice. 

 “Final Camelina N2O Calculations for Docket.xls”

o This document contains the direct fertilizer N2O emissions, indirect 

fertilizer N2O emissions, direct N2O emissions from crop residue, and

indirect N2O emissions from crop residue for camelina and soybean 

biodiesel production in the U.S. 

o The nitrogen fertilizer application rates for camelina are assumed to be 40 

pounds/acre, References for these articles are included in the Federal 

Register notice associated with this docket. 

o The nitrogen fertilizer application rates for soybeans are based on regional 

application rates used in the FASOM model. These application rates are 

documented in the Final RFS2 Rulemaking Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-

0161-3178.
FILED IN 1ST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON. TEXAS JUN26 2015 In The CHRISTOPHERfMFmp

## Court of Appeals For The 

### CLERK Y_M\ First District ofTexas

NO. 01-015-00063-CV Patrick Cox, Appellant(s) Cara Cox, Appellee(s) OnAppealfrom the 245th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013-21966 

### Appellant's First Motion to Request Extension ofTime to File Appellant's Brief Appellant acting pro se comes before this Court and submits this 

### Appellant's First Motion to Request Extension ofTime to FileAppellant's Brief. 

### Appellant has contacted opposing counsel on this matter and submitssubmits this motion as an unopposed motion. Appellant requests an extension of30 days to file his initial briefwith 

### the Court. Due to other legal matters in othercourts requiringAppellant's involvementwith his attorneys in those matters, Appellant needs additional time to properly develop the arguments in this matterforthis Court. 

### Appellants prays that this Court will order the relief sought by Appellant in this motion. Respectfully Submitted by:

Patrick Cox Pro SeAppellant Mailing address: 247 Hedwia Rd Telephone number: 832-495-9416 Fax number: 855-280-1504 

### e-mail address: divorce_cara@yahoo.comCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Icertifythat a true copy of the above was served on each attorney of record or party in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on June 26, 2015. email to: Alan Daughtry by email: alan@alandauahtrvlaw.com Attorney for Appellee

Patrick Cox
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Plaintiff Kathleen Ellis, who is represented by

separate counsel, joined only one of the motions for partial

summary judgment. (Docket No. 476.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

JAMES P. DEFAZIO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 HOLLISTER, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

NOS. CIV. 04-1358 WBS GGH

 05-0559 WBS GGH

 05-1726 WBS GGH

 CONSOLIDATED

ORDER

----oo0oo----

On April 24, 2009, plaintiffs in the above-captioned

action filed three motions: two motions for partial summary

judgment and one motion to remove plan trustees (collectively

“plaintiffs’ motions”).1 (Docket Nos. 474, 475, 477.) Then, on

April 30, 2009, defendants filed four motions: three motions for

partial summary judgment and one motion to strike (collectively

“defendants’ motions”). (Docket Nos. 483, 484, 489, 495.) 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 501 Filed 05/08/09 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiff Kathleen Ellis and defendants thereafter sought

additional time to respond to the motions and requested that oral

argument on the motions be rescheduled accordingly. (Docket Nos.

496-500.)

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1) any opposition to plaintiffs’ or defendants’ motions

shall be filed no later than May 26, 2009;

2) any reply to the oppositions shall be filed no later

than June 8, 2009; and

3) the hearing on plaintiffs’ and defendants’ motions

is hereby rescheduled for 2:00 p.m. on June 22, 2009.

DATED: May 8, 2009

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 501 Filed 05/08/09 Page 2 of 2
# STATEOF LOUISIANA

COURTOFAPPEAL,

# FIRSTCIRCUIT ADVANCED SURGICAL CONCEPTS, NO. 2021 CW 1497 L. L. C. VERSUS ALPESH D. PATEL, M. D. 

### FEBRUARY 14, 2022 In Re: Aipesh D. Patel, M. D., 

## applying for supervisory writs,

19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 

### 705, 782. BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND THERIOT, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. PMc JEW MRT



### COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT


### DEPUTY C ERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT
UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYREGION577WESTJACKSONBOULEVARDCHICAGO,IL60604-3590LaurelL.KroackChiefBureauofAirJAN092013IllinoisEnvironmentalProtectionAgency1021NorthGrandAvenue,EastSpringfield,Illinois62794-9276REPLYTOTHEATTENTIONOF:ThisletterisinresponsetoyourDecember31,2012,revisiontotheIllinoisstateimplementationplan(SIP).TherevisionwhichwassubmittedtoaddresstheCleanAirAct(CAA)sectionllO(a)(l)and(2)infrastructureSIPelements,whicharenecessaryfortheimplementation,maintenance,andenforcementofthe2010N02and2010S02nationalambientairqualitystandards.Specifically,theSIPrevisionisintendedtoaddresstherequirementsofCAAsection110(a)(2)(A)-section110(a)(2)(M),withtheexceptionofsection110(a)(2)(1),whichisnotpartoftheinfrastructureSIPprocess.EPAhasdeterminedthatthesubmissioniscompleteforeachoftheseelements,exceptfornarrowportionsrelatingtothepreventionofsignificantdeterioration(PSD).IllinoisdidnotsubmitacompleteSIPtoaddresssection110(a)(2)(C)and(J)relatingtoPSDpermittingprogramsrequiredbypartCoftitleIoftheCAA.IllinoisalsodidnotsubmitacompleteSIPtoaddresssection110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)relatingtointerferencewithotherstates'PSDpermittingprogramsrequiredbypartCbysourcesinIllinois.IllinoisalsofailedtosubmitacompleteSIPtoaddresssection11O(a)(2)(D)(ii)relatingtonotificationtootherstates.However,theapplicablePSDrequirementscontainedinsections110(a)(2)(C),(D)(i)(ll),(D)(ii),and(J)arealreadyaddressedforIllinois,asEPAhasdelegatedauthoritytothestatetoadministertheFederallypromulgatedPSDregulationscontainedin40C.F.R.52.21.AfindingofcompletenessmerelyindicatesthatthesubmissionmeetsthecriteriathatanyplanmustsatisfyforEPAtotakerulemakingactiononit.AcompletenessfindingisnotafmdingonthemeritsoftheplanorwhetheritmeetsEPA'sSIPapprovalrequirements.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorneedadditionalinformationpleasecontactme,orAndyChang,ofmystaff,at312-886-0258.Since4GeorgeT.DirectorAirandRadiationDivisionRecycled/Recyclable•PrintedwithVegetableOilBasedInkson100%RecycledPaper(100%Post-Consumer)
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 8721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3342]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-34-002]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

February 21, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 12, 2007, Transcontinental Gas Pipe 
Line Corporation (Transco) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to 
Ordering Paragraph (B)(1) of the Commission's Order issued January 11, 
2007, in Docket No. CP06-34-001.
    Transco states that copies of the filing were served on parties on 
the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance 
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests 
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a 
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the 
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu 
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons 
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies 
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#490f0c1b0a06272520272c1a3c3939263b3d092f2c3b2a672e263f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="24626176676b4a484d4a41775154544b565064424156470a434b52">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 8, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3342 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3965]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL05-25-002; EL05-26-002; EL05-27-002]


Southern Company Services, Inc; Notice of Filing

February 27, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 20, 2007, Southern Company Service 
filed amended interconnection agreements under the Southern Operating 
Companies' Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, 
Fourth Revised Volume No. 5, designated as service agreement numbers 
172, 310, and 837, pursuant to the Commission's Order issued January 
19, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cb8d8e998884a5a7a2a5ae98bebbbba4b9bf8badaeb9a8e5aca4bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="296f6c7b6a66474540474c7a5c5959465b5d694f4c5b4a074e465f">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 13, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3965 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
June 29 , 2015

Skypics LLC

41 Ingham Hill Road

Old Saybrook, CT 06475

To whom it may concern :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your March 12 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0631 ),

but we are unable to process your request any further. The in formation you sent does no t

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any

further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of t he

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exem ption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your reque st any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do No t H ear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/ s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18I0044. CHIP LAKE et al. v. SILVER COMET TERMINAL PARTNERS,

LLC et al.

A18I0045. RTA STRATEGY LLC et al. SILVER COMET TERMINAL

PARTNERS, LLC.

In these applications for interlocutory appeal, the applicants seek review of the

trial court’s September 21, 2017 discovery order. We dismissed the applications

because the applicants did not include certificates of immediate review. The applicants

have now filed a motion for reconsideration and have raised a persuasive argument that

the trial court’s order is subject to direct appeal. Accordingly, we hereby GRANT

their motions for reconsideration. Our previous order dismissing these applications is

VACATED, and the applications are REINSTATED.

Pursuant to Spivey v. Hembree, 268 Ga. App. 485, 486 n.1 (602 SE2d 246)

(2004), we will grant an application for interlocutory review if the challenged order is

subject to direct appeal. Accordingly, the applications are hereby GRANTED. The

applicants shall have ten days from the date of this order to file a notice of appeal in

the trial court, if they have not already done so. The clerk of the trial court is directed

to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

December 21, 2017
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

12/21/2017
No. 46714.

#### Protest 71419-K of Q. W. Lung Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In view of Abstract 45762 and stipulation of counsel that the ginger is not composed in chief value of manufactured sugar it was held that the tax is not applicable.