alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23769]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-1-4-000]


Granite State Gas Transmission Inc.; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

September 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 28, 1997, Granite State Gas 
Transmission, Inc. (Granite State) tendered for filing with the 
Commission the revised tariff sheets listed below in its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, for effectiveness on October 1, 
1998:

Fourth Sub. Eighth Revised Sheet No. 21
Fourth Sub. Ninth Revised Sheet No. 22
Second Sub. Eighth Revised Sheet No. 23

    According to Granite State, the revised tariff sheets reflect two 
tracking adjustments to its rates for transportation services: the 
Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) and the Annual Charges Adjustment (ACA) for 
the fiscal year 1998. Granite State further states, that through the 
PCA, it receives recovery for certain incremental electric power costs 
for which it is billed by Portland Pipe Line Corporation pursuant to 
the terms of a lease of pipeline owned by Portland Pipe Line. Granite 
State states that the PCA tracking procedure which was approved by the 
Commission in Docket No. RP97-300 provides for quarterly adjustments to 
recover the incremental electric costs. It is also stated the 
Commission has notified interstate pipelines that the ACA charge 
effective during fiscal 1998 is $0.0022 per dekatherm, which is shown 
on the revised tariff sheets.
    Granite State further states that copies of its filing have been 
served on its firm and interruptible customers, and on the regulatory 
agencies of the states of Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest said 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 Sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance 
with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 motion to 
intervene. Copies of Granite State's filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23769 Filed 9-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Mary Katherine McCARTHY et al., Appellants, v. ESTATE of Joseph E. CAUSEY, Deceased, Appellees.

No. HH-122.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 18, 1978.

John Paul Howard, Jacksonville, for appellants.

Berrien Becks, Jr., Daytona Beach, Thor-wald J. Husfeld, DeLand, McKenney J. Davis, Jacksonville, Cynthia S. Tunnicliff and Sam Spector, of Spector & Tunnicliff, P. A., Tallahassee, for appellees.

BOOTH, Judge.

This cause is before us on appeal from the order of the Circuit Court, Volusia County, denying petition for revocation of probate of will. The order sought to be reviewed finds that the decedent, Joseph E. Causey, was competent and of sound mind at the time the will was executed; that the will was not procured through undue influence and states:

> “The Court is doubtful that a confidential relationship existed between the Respondents and JOSEPH E. CAUSEY prior to April 13, 1976, the date the Will of JOSEPH E. CAUSEY was executed. However, if said confidential relationship did exist between JOSEPH E. CAUSEY and the Respondents prior to April 13, 1976 and if any presumption of undue influence arose as a result of said confidential relationship, the Respondents presented a reasonable explanation for their roles in the affairs of JOSEPH E. CAUSEY, pri- or to the execution of his Will, and prior to his death, and specifically in the preparation of the Will of JOSEPH E. CAU-SEY.”

We have reviewed the record in the case and after consideration of the briefs and arguments of counsel, hold that the findings and conclusions of the trial court are supported by the evidence and the court has not misapprehended the legal effect of the proof.

The deceased was some 83 years of age at the time he executed his will. He suffered some of the infirmities that usually accompany advancing age, but his will was his own action, ah action which comported entirely with his previous statements concerning his affection for, and appreciation of the friendship of, “the boys” as he referred to the appellees herein. Under the circumstances he was clearly entitled to leave his property to appellees, rather than to his distant relatives.

In *Marston v. Churchill,*137 Fla. 154, 187 So. 762 (1939), the Supreme Court held that kindness or solicitude on the part of the beneficiary would not be equated with undue influence, and affirmed the validity of the will leaving the bulk of the estate to one who had befriended the testatrix in her declining years, stating:

> “The right of designating legatees is highly valuable, particularly to the aged, and should not be considered lightly. It was but natural for testatrix to have favored one who contributed to her hap*472piness and comfort in her declining years over the children of a half sister who had shown her scant attention . . ”

Accordingly, the judgment below is AFFIRMED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNumerical simulations of fuel droplet flows using a Lagrangian triangular meshThe incompressible, Lagrangian, triangular grid code, SPLISH, was converted for the study of flows in and around fuel droplets. This involved developing, testing and incorporating algorithms for surface tension and viscosity. The major features of the Lagrangian method and the algorithms are described. Benchmarks of the algorithms are given. Several calculations are presented for kerosene droplets in air. Finally, extensions which make the code compressible and three dimensional are discussed.Document ID19840004343Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsFritts, M. J.*(Naval Research Lab. Washington, DC, United States)*Fyfe, D. E.*(Naval Research Lab. Washington, DC, United States)*Oran, E. S.*(Naval Research Lab. Washington, DC, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1983Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And Heat TransferReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:168263NASA-CR-168263Accession Number84N12411Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NRL-44-1422-0-1CONTRACT_GRANT: NASA ORDER C-055049-DDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840004343.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
Exhibit 32.1 

STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350 

    I, Peter C. Chang, the chief executive officer of Alliance  Fiber Optic  Products,  Inc.  (the  "Company"),  certify for thepurposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,
    (i)                 the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended          June 30, 2004 (the “Report”), fully complies with the          requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 

    (ii)                 the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 
   By           /s/ Peter C. Chang                                        Peter C. Chang   August 12, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47650-47651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23865]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS


Notice of Meeting

    The next meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 18 
September 1997 at 10:00 AM in the Commission's offices at the Pension 
Building, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 441 F Street, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20001. The meeting will focus on a variety of projects affecting 
the appearance of the city.

[[Page 47651]]

    Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or 
oral statements should be addressed to Charles H. Atherton, Secretary, 
Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address or call 202-504-2200. 
Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing 
impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the 
meeting date.

    Dated in Washington, D.C. 29 August 1997.
Charles H. Atherton,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23865 Filed 9-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Bahram Akradi, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Life TimeFitness, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theCompany as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and we have:
     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;
     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and
     c) disclosed in this report any change in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurred during the Company’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the Company’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financialreporting; and
     5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theCompany’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 4, 2004                                      /s/ Bahram Akradi   Bahram Akradi   *Chairman of the Board of Directors, President andChief Executive Officer*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6126

JEFFREY ALAN TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CA-99-2102-2)

Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 4, 2001

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Alan Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Alan Taylor appeals the district court’s order denying

his second motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error.

In the briefing order, Taylor was warned that this court would not

consider issues not specifically raised in his informal brief. See

4th Cir. Local R. 34(b). Nonetheless, Taylor’s informal brief does

not challenge the district court’s order, but instead addresses

only the merits of his § 1983 claim. Accordingly, we affirm. We

also deny Taylor’s motion for a certificate of appealability and

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 31.1
 
 OFFICER’S CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES OXLEY ACT
 
 I, David Lieberman, certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 of World Health Energy Holdings, Inc.;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
 
 4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:


(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
 
 (c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;


5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):


(a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weakness in internal controls; and
 
 (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal controls.





Date: November 12, 2010





By:
/s/ David LiebermanDavid LiebermanChief Executive OfficerChief Financial Officer
----

xhi

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

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

|   | Date:      February 9, 2009 |    |                                       |
|--------|-----------------------------|---------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |                        | Signed: | /s/ Kelvin Claney                          |
|   |                        |    | President      and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                        |    |                                       |
|   | :                           | Signed  | /s/ Richard Ransom                         |
|   |                        |    | Chief      Financial Officer               |

----
II 

Calendar No. 318 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1892 

[Report No. 109–201] 

To amend Public Law 107–153 to modify a certain date. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 19, 2005 

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and Mr. DORGAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

DECEMBER 8, 2005 

Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of November 18, 2005, 

by Mr. MCCAIN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend Public Law 107–153 to modify a certain date. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SETTLEMENT OF TRIBAL CLAIMS. 

4 Section 1(a) of Public Law 107–153 (25 U.S.C. 4044 

5 note; 116 Stat. 79) is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 

6 1999’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2005’’. 
Calendar No. 318 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1892 

[Report No. 109–201] 

A BILL 

To amend Public Law 107–153 to modify a certain 

date. 

DECEMBER 8, 2005 

Reported without amendment
```

EXHIBIT 99.1

                          CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Larry G. Arnold,  President and Chief  Executive,  Financial  and  Accounting
Officer of Inform Worldwide Holdings, Inc. (the Company),  certify,  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)  the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly  period
     ended September 30, 2002 (the Report) fully complies with the  requirements
     of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  November 14, 2002

                                    /s/Larry G. Arnold
                                    ------------------
                                    Larry G. Arnold
                                    President and Chief Executive, Financial and
                                    Accounting Officer
```
#### Abram JORDAN, sometimes known as Abraham Jordan, sometimes known as A. B. Jordan, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-409.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 27, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of the Succession of Beulah E. MOORE.

No. 11629.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 28, 1977.

Writ Refused Feb. 17, 1978.

*354Johnnie A. Jones, Baton Rouge, of counsel, for plaintiff-appellant, Hazel H. Young, et al.

Vanue B. Lacour, Baton Rouge, of counsel, for defendant-appellee, Girardeau A. Spann.

Before LOTTINGER, EDWARDS and PONDER, JJ.

EDWARDS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment sus,-taining an exception of no cause of action and dismissing plaintiffs’ suit. We affirm.

Plaintiffs are the children of Mrs. Beatrice Hainsworth and Mrs. Fannie Matthews, two named legatees of Beulah E. Moore, the decedent-testatrix. Both Mrs. Hainsworth and Mrs. Matthews predeceased the testatrix.

Plaintiffs instituted this suit for a declaratory judgment to be recognized as the owners by representation of the bequests made by the testatrix to their ancestors. The trial court sustained an exception of no cause of action filed by the executor of the testatrix’s estate.

The olographic will of the testatrix states, in pertinent part:

> . “I direct that said properties (8776 and lot) be sold at private sale and the proceeds distributed as follows: one half to my deceased husband’s (J. B. Moore’s) sisters: Mrs. Beatrice Hainesworth (sic) and Mrs. Fannie Matthews, share and share alike . . ”

The will contains no provision transmitting the bequests in the event the named legatees should die before the testatrix.

In this instance, the law and jurisprudence are clear that a legacy becomes without effect if the legatee predeceases the testatrix. LSA-C.C. art. 1697. The lapse of a legacy due to the prior death of the legatee causes the legacy to fall into the residuum of the testatrix’s estate and does not go to the heirs of the predeceased legatee by representation or otherwise. LSA-C.C. art. 1709. See, *Succession of Higgins,*275 So.2d 447 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1973).

Plaintiffs therefore have no cause of action to recover the lapsed legacies.

Similarly, we find that plaintiffs have no legal basis upon which to seek a reconstruction of the testatrix’s will, as there is no ambiguity in the wording of the will. LSA-C.C. art. 1712.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed at appellants’ cost.

AFFIRMED.