alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24619]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. GT97-67-000]


Pacific Interstate Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

September 11, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 9, 1997, Pacific Interstate 
Transmission Company (PITCO) submitted its restated tariff in 
electronic format in compliance with Order No. 582 (60 Fed. Reg. 
52,960) and the Commission's letter of August 14, 1997.
    PITCO states that, in its restated tariff, it has revised each 
sheet only to reflect a re-issuance date of October 1, 1997 and that it 
has revised Original Sheet No. 202, ``Exhibit A to Service Agreement,'' 
to correct its address. PITCO states that hard copies of the filing 
were served on its sole firm customer, Southern California Gas Company, 
and on the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure. All such motions or protests must be 
filed as provided in 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 this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-24619 Filed 9-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
– (CF2- CF2)a – (CF2- CFCl)b – (CF2- CF)c – 

 │

 OC3F7 

a = 0.66 – 0.81, b = 0.27 – 0.15, c = 0.07 – 0.02
From: Richard Parker [ mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com ]

Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 1:26 PM

To: Michael Rivest; GJRosenquist@lbl.gov ; Brian Coffey; Matthew Nardo tti; Caitlin Johnson; Robert Carmichael; Chris Bolduc; Katie Coughlin; Freem an, Jeremiah; Edwards, Brenda; Emily Marchetti Subject: Transformer reg-Neg: Status report



## DOE colleagues,

As the year draws to a close, I thought it m ight be useful to take stock of where we are (or at least my take on where we are) in the transformer reg-neg talk (memo attached). I have sent this memo to Jo hn Cymbalsky and Dan C ohen previously.

I regret that we didn't get to yes on liqu id immersed, but hopefully the process yielded useful information that will help you improve the rule, and I am hopeful that we may yet achieve a favorable energy-saving consensus on MVDT and LVDT.

In any case, it has been a pleasure and ho nor to have a chance to work with all of you this fall. I look forward to wrapping up our business on transformers expeditiously and hopefully favorably in the New Year.

Meanwhile, best wishes to all for a safe and enjoyable holiday season!

All best,

Richard

This communication is from Navigant Consulting Inc. E-mail text or attachments may contain information which is confidential and may also be privileged. Th is communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this communica tion in error, please return it with the title

"received in error" to NCISecurity@navigant.com , and then delete the email and destroy any copies of it. In addition, this communication is subject to, and incorporates by reference, additional disclaimers found in Navigant Consulting's "Email Disclaimer" section at www.Navigant.com

.

Navigant Consulting, Inc. Company Registration Number: UK Ltd. 3641719 Registered in Delaware, USA Registered Office Address: 30 South Wacker Drive, Suit e 3400, Chicago, Illinois 60606
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of KIT digital, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robin Smyth, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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 results of operations of the
                Company.





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to
      be
      incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before
      or
      after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
      such
      filing.








Date:
                August 13, 2008
            
            /s/
                Robin SmythRobin
                Smyth
              Chief
                Financial Officer
Case 4:08-cv-01921-CCC Document 98 Filed 04/28/10 Page 1 of 9
Case 4:08-cv-01921-CCC Document 98 Filed 04/28/10 Page 2 of 9
Case 4:08-cv-01921-CCC Document 98 Filed 04/28/10 Page 3 of 9
Case 4:08-cv-01921-CCC Document 98 Filed 04/28/10 Page 4 of 9
Case 4:08-cv-01921-CCC Document 98 Filed 04/28/10 Page 5 of 9
Case 4:08-cv-01921-CCC Document 98 Filed 04/28/10 Page 6 of 9
Case 4:08-cv-01921-CCC Document 98 Filed 04/28/10 Page 7 of 9
Case 4:08-cv-01921-CCC Document 98 Filed 04/28/10 Page 8 of 9
Case 4:08-cv-01921-CCC Document 98 Filed 04/28/10 Page 9 of 9
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21

- 0310

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. GALEN LEWIS HAWK,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the reply brief and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant has until October 31 , 2022 , to file the reply brief. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 26 2022

09/26/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0310
#### Lewis J. TOWNER, Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee, v. Hansen MILLIGAN et al., Defendants-Appellees-Appellants.

No. 3024.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

March 12, 1970.

Sidney P. Landry and Ronald L. Men-ville, Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellee-ap-pellant.

Davidson, Meaux, Onebane & Donohoe, by J. J. Davidson, III, Lafayette, for defendants-appellants-appellees.

On Motion to Dismiss Appeal

En Banc.

SAVOY, Judge.

This matter is before this Court on a motion to dismiss the appeal obtained by plaintiff-appellee only insofar as quantum is involved.

Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff in the instant case for a money judgment and was signed on September 9, 1969.

On September 22, 1969, defendants-appellants were granted an appeal, and bond was furnished on that date.

On December 8, 1969, plaintiff-appellee filed a petition for appeal, complaining of the quantum awarded him as being inadequate. On December 8, 1969, the court granted plaintiff a devolutive appeal upon his furnishing bond in the sum of $500.00. On February 25, 1970, appellants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that as of February 18, 1970, plaintiff had not filed a bond in the case; nor had he made the necessary deposit with this Court. This was verified by the office of the Clerk of Court of St. Landry Parish, Louisiana, by certificate dated February 18, 1970.

We are of the opinion that the motion to dismiss the appeal is good. In an article *96in 29 Louisiana Law Review at page 269, Judge Albert Tate, Jr. made the following observations:

> “On reading the procedural decisions of the past year, one is struck by two errors which account for the dismissal of over seven percent of these appeals (and of almost two percent of all appeals).

> The first and most serious concerns a misunderstanding as to when a devolu-tive appeal bond must be filed. The bond must be filed within the delay required to perfect the appeal, ninety days after the judgment becomes final in the trial court. That is, not only must the order of appeal be taken within the delay, hut also the security to perfect it must be filed within this period. Despite this requirement of our law, in twelve instances last year the appeal bond was filed after the delay expired, in the mistaken belief apparently that, after timely securing his order granting the appeal, the appellant need not file his bond until the ‘return day’ (the date fixed by the order granting the appeal for the clerk to file the appellate record in the appellate court). This mistake is fatal, for the appeal is an absolute nullity and forever lost unless the appeal bond is timely filed.”

Our Supreme Court reiterated the rule of law in Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. Cocreham, 251 La. 705, 206 So.2d 79.

Having failed to perfect his appeal within ninety days from the finality of the judgment in the district court in the instant case, the appeal taken by plaintiff is dismissed.

Appeal of plaintiff is dismissed.
#### SOUTHEAST TITLE AND INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. John Robert COLLINS, Leroy Moses and City Products Corporation, a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 69-41.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

July 22, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 23, 1969.

*248John R. Beranek, of Jones, Adams, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Malcolm W. Weldon of Dixon, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell, Miami, for appellee-City Products Corp.

MCDONALD, PARKER LEE, Associate Judge.

The appellant, Southeast Title and Insurance Company, issued an automobile liability insurance policy to one Leroy Moses. Leroy Moses was an employee of appellee, City Products Corporation and was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving a vehicle owned by City Products.

City Products Corporation did not own an insurance policy but was the holder of a certificate from the State Insurance Commissioner certifying that it had furnished satisfactory evidence pursuant to Section 324.171, F.S.1967, F.S.A., of possessing a net unencumbered capital of at least forty thousand dollars and would respond to the requirements of the Florida Financial Responsibility Law.

The question presented to the trial judge was whether or not the appellant, Southeast Title and Insurance Company had primary coverage for the accident. The trial judge ruled that it did.

The appellant, though admitting coverage to Leroy Moses and to the appellee since it was an organization legally responsible, urges that its coverage is excess because of the following provision in its policy:

> “Insuring Agreement V shall be excess insurance over any other valid and collectible insurance.”

In so contending, the appellant is asking this court to equate proof of financial responsibility with insurance.

The policy wrtten by the plantiff contains no definitions of “other valid and collectible insurance.” As correctly stated by the appellee, insurance has been judicially defined as follows:

> “Insurance, of ancient origin, involves a contract, whereby, for an adequate consideration, one party undertakes to indemnify another against loss arising from certain specified contingencies or perils. Fundamentally and shortly, it is contractual security against possible anticipated loss. Risk is essential and, equally so, a shifting of its incidence from one to another.” Epmeier v. United States, 7 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 508.

Proof of financial responsibility does not fit that definition. This conclusion compares with that reached in Home Indemnity *249Company v. Humble Oil & Refining Company, Tex.Civ.App.1958, 314 S.W.2d 861.

The summary judgment granted by the trial judge is therefore affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and McCAIN, J., concur.
The State of



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

Wednesd ay, February 11, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00125

- CR

Juan MARTINEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5481 Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant has filed a motion asking for a ninety

- day extension of time to file his pro se brief. Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a pro se brief is GRANTED in part. Appellant’s brief is due on Friday, April 3, 2015

.

T he Clerk of this Court is ORDERED to send a paper copy of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record in this ca u se to appellant at TDCJ #01925996, Willi a m P. Clements Unit, 9601 Spur 591, Amarillo, Texas, 79107

- 9606.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 11th day of February, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
CERTIFICATION



I, Scott Perren, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of US Biodefense, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact, or omit to state a material fact necessary 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 quarterly report; and



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial position, results of operations, and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.



4.

The registrant's other certifying officers 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 to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)

presented in this quarterly 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant'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 weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and



6.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Date:  October 21, 2005



/s/ Scott Perren

Treasurer

Director
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1754 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1754

  To apply the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a 
     State for fiscal year 2005 for fiscal years 2006 through 2014.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 22, 2005

   Mr. Inhofe introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To apply the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a 
     State for fiscal year 2005 for fiscal years 2006 through 2014.

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

SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2005 FEDERAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE 
              PERCENTAGE FOR FISCAL YEARS 2006 THROUGH 2014.

    Notwithstanding section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1396d(b)), the Federal medical assistance percentage determined 
for a State for fiscal year 2005 shall apply to the State for each of 
fiscal years 2006 through 2014 for purposes of titles XIX and XXI of 
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq., 1397aa et seq.).
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JASIRI A. WALLOE, :

:

Plaintiff : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-05-1024

:

v. : (Judge Jones)

:

TROY WILLIAMSON, et al., :

 : 

Defendants :

ORDER

December 13, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiff, Jasiri Walloe (“Plaintiff” or “Walloe”), an inmate presently confined

in the Allenwood Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI-Allenwood”), in White Deer,

Pennsylvania, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. He seeks

damages and injunctive relief based on allegations that Defendant, Warden Troy

Williamson (“Defendant” or “Williamson”), failed to protect him from an assault by

his cellmate while housed in the Special Housing Unit at FCI-Allenwood. On

September 14, 2005, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, (doc. 11) and

a statement of material facts and supporting brief were filed on September 28, 2005.

Case 4:05-cv-01024-JEJ-DB Document 15 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 3
1. By Order dated May 23, 2005, this Court directed the parties' attention to the

Local Rules of Court. (Rec. Doc. 4). The Order referred specifically to an opposing

party's duty to file a brief in opposition to a motion within fifteen (15) days after

service of the movant's brief. See M.D. Pa. Local Rule 7.6.

(Rec. Docs. 12 and 13). Plaintiff's brief in opposition to this motion is now long

overdue and Plaintiff has neither made an appropriate filing nor requested an

extension of time in which to do so. Thus, we will direct Plaintiff to file a brief in

opposition.1

 See M.D. Pa. Local Rule 7.6.

Generally, a dispositive motion may not be granted merely because it is

unopposed. However, when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with a court

order, the court may dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure.

We will consider dismissing this case for failure to prosecute and comply with

a court order under the authority of Rule 41(b) if Plaintiff fails to oppose the motion

or otherwise communicate with the court within twenty (20) days of the date of this

order.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff shall file, within twenty (20) days of the date of this

Order, a brief in opposition to Defendant's motion for summary

judgment. (Rec. Doc. 11). If Plaintiff fails to file a brief in

opposition, we will consider dismissing Plaintiff's complaint

Case 4:05-cv-01024-JEJ-DB Document 15 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 3
pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and comply with

a court order.

s/ John E. Jones III

John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01024-JEJ-DB Document 15 Filed 12/13/05 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 172 (Friday, September 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 46956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23545]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-172-006]


ANR Storage Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

August 29, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 26, 1997, ANR Storage Company (ANRS) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff Original Volume No. 
1, Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet No. 5 and Substitute First Revised 
Sheet No. 126, to be effective June 1, 1997.
    ANRS states that the attached tariff sheets are being filed in 
compliance with the Commission's Order issued on August 11, 1997 in the 
above captioned docket.
    ANRS states that copies of the filing were served upon the 
company's Jurisdictional customers.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such 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. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23545 Filed 9-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M