alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB UNDER THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

|   | Re: | HSBC Home Equity Loan Trust (USA) 2006-3 |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------|

I, Dennis J. Mickey, Chief Operating Officer – Treasury of HSBC Finance Corporation (the “Company”), pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB under the Securities Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 3.10(a) of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of October 26, 2006 (the “Agreement”), among HSBC Home Equity Loan Corporation I, as Depositor, the Company, as Servicer, HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Administrator, and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, hereby certify that:

 

|   | 1. | A review of the activities of the Company from October 26, 2006 through December 31, 2006 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period referred to above except as set forth below: |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | NONE |
|--------|------|

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate on behalf of the Company this 5th  day of March 2007.                   

 

HSBC Finance Corporation

 

 

|   | By: | /s/ Dennis J. Mickey |
|--------|-----|----------------------|

|   | Name: | Dennis J. Mickey |
|--------|-------|------------------|

|   | Title: | Chief Operating Officer – Treasury |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 39

To provide for the appointment of Howard H. Baker, Jr. as a citizen regent

of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 24, 1995

Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. COCHRAN, and Mr. SIMPSON) introduced the

following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

JOINT RESOLUTION

To provide for the appointment of Howard H. Baker, Jr.

as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat4 utes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents

5 of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other than

6 Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the expira7 tion of the term of Jeannine Smith Clark of the District

8 of Columbia on August 25, 1995, is filled by the appoint9 ment of Howard H. Baker, Jr. of the District of Colum-
2

•SJ 39 IS

1 bia. The appointment is for a term of six years and shall

2 take effect on the date on which this joint resolution be3 comes law.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.89

                                PHILIP FREY, JR.

                                 June 27, 2002

Microsemi Corporation
2381 Morse Avenue
Irvine, CA  92614

         Re: Prepayment of Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan Payments
             -------------------------------------------------------------
Gentlemen:

In exchange for my release of all of my rights to payment of amounts, due or
which may accrue under the Microsemi Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan
effective September 15, 1986 ("SERP"), I agree with you as follows:

1. The total amount to be paid me is $728,119. Payment will be made by Microsemi
on June 28, 2002 by wire transfer of immediately available funds, in accordance
with the instructions that I attach. This payment represents the principal
accruing and discounted for early payment.

2. Upon the payment to me of the benefits described above, I hereby release and
discharge Microsemi Corporation from any further obligation or liability for any
amounts accruing under the SERP either to me or to any member of my family.

3. I agree to execute and deliver such further documents and instruments as may
be deemed by Microsemi Corporation to be necessary or advisable in order to
carry out and perfect this prepayment and release of Microsemi of any further
obligations or liabilities under the SERP.

4. I understand that the prepayment is made at my request and for my benefit.

5. I will indemnify and hold Microsemi Corporation, its officers, directors and
agents from any obligation or liability for U.S. or state income and other taxes
arising out of the payment and prepayment and arising out of any obligation for
withholding taxes or other advance payments due on account of the payment.


                                    Very truly yours,

                                    /s/ PHILIP FREY, JR.

                                    Philip Frey, Jr.

I hereby consent and agree to the foregoing:

/s/ DOROTHY FREY
--------------------------
Dorothy Frey, spouse

Accepted and Agreed:

Microsemi Corporation

By  /s/ JOHN HOLTRUST
   -----------------------
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 38

Restating the commitment to a seven year balanced budget

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 5 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 1996

Mr. DASCHLE submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Restating the commitment to a seven year balanced budget

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That:

3 (1) The President and the Congress shall enact

4 legislation in the second session of the One Hundred

5 Fourth Congress to achieve a balanced budget not

6 later than fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Con7 gressional Budget Office, and the President and the

8 Congress agree that the balanced budget must pro9 tect future generations, ensure medicare solvency,

10 reform welfare, and provide adequate funding for

11 medicaid, education, agriculture, national defense,

12 veterans, and the environment. Further, the bal-
2

SCON 38 ATS

1 anced budget shall adopt tax policies to help working

2 families and stimulate future economic growth.

3 (2) The balanced budget agreement shall be es4 timated by the Congressional Budget Office based

5 on its most recent current economic and technical

6 assumptions, following a thorough consultation and

7 review with the Office of Management and Budget,

8 and other Government and private experts.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. David Byron THOMPSON Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-2194

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 27, 2017

Filed: December 1, 2017

Kyra E. Jenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

David Byron Thompson, Pro Se

Before SHEPHERD, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Federal prisoner David Thompson appeals after the district court1 denied his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) motion seeking the return of property. After careful review of the record, we conclude that Thompson’s Rule 41(g) motion — which he concedes sought the same *456property as he requested in a prior Rule 41(g) motion — was barred by res judicata. See Rutherford v. Kessel, 560 F.3d 874, 877 (8th Cir. 2009) (elements of res judica-ta); Followell v. United States, 532 F.3d 707, 708 (8th Cir. 2008) (res judicata precludes relitigation of claim on grounds that were raised or could have been raised in prior action). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable P. K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1450
JOHN S. ZIMMERMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DANIEL BRUBAKER; NANCY BRUBAKER; LYNN D. BRUBAKER; STEVEN BLATT; PORTER GRAVES, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. B. Waugh Crigler, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-39-H) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John S. Zimmerman, Appellant Pro Se. William Augustas Julias, JULIAS, BLATT & BLATT, P.C., Harrisonburg, Virginia; Peter Robert Messitt, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We grant Appellees' mo tions to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed byFed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Appellant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain either an extension or a reopening of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We 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.

DISMISSED
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 808

AN ACT

To extend the deadline for the conversion of the vessel

M/V TWIN DRILL, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR CONVERSION.

4 Section 601(d) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act

5 of 1993 (Public Law 103–206, 107 Stat. 2445) is

6 amended—

7 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘June 30,

8 1995’’ and inserting ‘‘June 30, 1996’’; and

9 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘12 months’’

10 and inserting ‘‘24 months’’.

Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 808

AN ACT

To extend the deadline for the conversion of the

vessel M/V TWIN DRILL, and for other purposes.
No. 85-1578.

#### Minaya *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reggie Andre BECKTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7029

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 22, 2017

Decided: January 11, 2018

Reggie Andre Beckton, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III, Dennis Michael Duffy, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, S. Katherine Bur-nette, Tobin Webb Lathan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Reggie Andre Beckton appeals the district court’s text order denying his motion for a show cause order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. *See United States v. Beckton,*No. 7:11-cr-00061-BR-1 (E.D.N.C. July 18, 2017).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0788 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0788

**2001/788/EC: Commission Decision of 12 November 2001 approving the amended programme of new olive-tree planting in France (notified under document number C(2001) 3436) **

*
Official Journal L 295 , 13/11/2001 P. 0024 - 0024 *

Commission Decision

of 12 November 2001

approving the amended programme of new olive-tree planting in France

(notified under document number C(2001) 3436)

(Only the French text is authentic)

(2001/788/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 of 20 July 1998 amending Regulation No 136/66/EEC on the establishment of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats(1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2366/98 of 30 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of production aid for olive oil for the 1998/1999, 1999/2000 and 2000/01 marketing years(2), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2001(3), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 provides that no aid under the common organisation of the market in oils and fats in force from 1 November 2001 may be paid to olive growers in respect of additional olive trees and the relevant areas planted after 1 May 1998 and those not covered by a cultivation declaration at a date to be determined. However, pursuant to the same Article, additional olive trees planted in connection with the conversion of old olive plantations and new plantings on areas covered by programmes approved by the Commission may be taken into account within certain limits to be determined.

(2) The French national programme of new plantings contains the information specified in Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2366/98. The French authorities have amended the programme approved by Commission Decision 2000/272/EC of 24 March 2000 approving the programme of new olive-tree planting in France(4). The amendment relates solely to the date of completion of the planting, which is postponed from 31 October 2001 to 31 October 2004.

(3) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Oils and Fats,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The amended French national programme for new planting of 3500 hectares of olive groves provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 is hereby approved.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the French Republic.

Done at Brussels, 12 November 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998, p. 32.

(2) OJ L 293, 31.10.1998, p. 50.

(3) OJ L 91, 31.3.2001, p. 45.

(4) OJ L 85, 6.4.2000, p. 35.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of SEA 2 SKY CORPORATION on Form 10-KSB for
the period  ended  August 31, 2008,  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Dennis Cox,  Chief  Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



Date: November 21, 2008



By:       /s/ Dennis Cox
         -----------------------------
         Dennis Cox
         Chief Financial Officer, principal financial officer
         and principal accounting officer
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6190 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6190

   To establish Chiricahua National Park in Arizona as a unit of the 
             National Park System, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 2016

 Ms. McSally introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To establish Chiricahua National Park in Arizona as a unit of the 
             National Park System, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Chiricahua National Park Act''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF CHIRICAHUA NATIONAL PARK.

    (a) Establishment and Purpose.--There is hereby established 
Chiricahua National Park in the State of Arizona.
    (b) Boundaries.--The boundaries of Chiricahua National Park are as 
generally depicted on the map entitled ``________'', numbered _______, 
and dated _____. The map shall be on file and available for public 
inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
    (c) Abolishment of Chiricahua National Monument.--
            (1) In general.--The Chiricahua National Monument is hereby 
        abolished and the lands and interests therein are incorporated 
        within and made part of Chiricahua National Park. Any funds 
        available for purposes of the monument shall be available for 
        purposes of the park.
            (2) References.--Any references in law (other than in this 
        Act), regulation, document, record, map or other paper of the 
        United States to Chiricahua National Monument shall be 
        considered a reference to Chiricahua National Park.
    (d) Administration.--The Secretary of the Interior shall administer 
Chiricahua National Park in accordance with this Act and laws generally 
applicable to units of the National Park System.
                                 <all>
```
RFS 2015 NPRM 5/8/15 STEO March 2015 calculations from EIA 5/15/15 2013 Vessel bunkering - dist (EIA-821)

Table I.A-3 and V.B.3-1 2014 2015 2016 2017 US 1,655,258 k gal EIA-821 released 1/15/15

Proposed Volume Requirements Bill gal Bill gal Bill gal Bill gal STEO March 2015 (Sean pull)2014 2015 2016 AK 113,640 k gal

Cellulosic biofuel 0.033 0.106 0.203 Gasoline consumption (MMBD) 8.92 9 8.94 6.9% AK % US

Biomass-based diesel 1.63 1.7 1.8 1.9 Ethanol (MMBD) 0.88 0.88 0.87

Advanced biofuels 2.68 2.9 3.4 Diesel Product Supplied (MMbd) 3.649 3.758 3.829

Renewable fuel 15.93 16.3 17.4 Biodiesel Consumption (MMbd) 0.100 0.101 0.100

Table I.B.5-1 and V.B.3-2 2014 2015 2016

Propsed Percentage Standards % % %

Cellulosic biofuel 0.019 0.059 0.113

Biomass-based diesel 1.42 1.42 1.5

Advanced biofuels 1.52 1.61 1.89

Renewable fuel 9.02 9.08 9.67

2014 2015 2016

Table VI.B.3-1 calculations, p. 99 EIA's calcs 2014 EIA's calcs 2015 EIA's calcs 2016

2014 US -ocean EPA's calcs 2015 US -ocean EPA's calcs 2016 US -ocean EPA's calcs

US (STEO) calc. AK (SEDS 2013) AKe ocean AK-ocean US ocean (AEO2014) -AK-oc calc EPA RVO terms US (STEO) calc. -AK-oc calcRVO terms US (STEO) calc. -AK-oc calcRVO terms

Term MMBD Bill Gal MM Bbl Bill Gal Bill Gal Bill Gal Trill Btu Bill Gal Bill Gal Bill Gal MMBD Bill Gal Bill Gal Bill Gal MMBD Bill Gal Bill Gal Bill Gal

G 8.92 136.744 6.505 0.273 136.47 136.42 9 137.970 137.70 137.63 8.94 137.426 137.15 136.82

D 3.649 55.946 5.55 0.233 0.039 0.194 78.300 0.565 55.19 55.07 3.758 57.610 56.85 56.88 3.829 58.859 58.10 57.97

RG 0.88 13.490 0.528 0.0222 13.47 13.39 0.88 13.490 13.47 13.4 0.87 13.374 13.35 13.31

RD 0.100 1.539 1.54 1.52 0.101 1.548 1.55 1.55 0.100 1.543 1.54 1.53

GE 0.01 0.00 0.00

GD 0.04 0.00 0.00

2014 V.B.3-2, p.100 2015 V.B.3-2, p.100 2016 V.B.3-2, p.100

I-2, p. 7 I.B.4-1, p. 16 I-2, p. 7 I.B.4-1, p. 16 I-2, p. 7 I.B.4-1, p. 16

EPA EPA Recalc EIA if only 2 digits EPA EPA Recalc EIA if only 2 digits EPA EPA Recalc EIA if only 2 digits

Final % Std Bill gal % std % std % std Bill gal % std % std % std Bill gal % std % std % std

Cellulosic biofuel 0.033 0.019% 0.019% 0.02% 0.106 0.059% 0.059% 0.06% 0.203 0.113% 0.113% 0.11%

Biomass-based diesel 1.67 1.42% 1.418% 1.42% 1.7 1.42% 1.420% 1.42% 1.8 1.50% 1.497% 1.50%

Advanced biofuels 2.68 1.52% 1.517% 1.52% 2.9 1.61% 1.615% 1.62% 3.4 1.89% 1.885% 1.89%

Renewable fuel 15.93 9.02% 9.018% 9.02% 16.3 9.08% 9.079% 9.08% 17.4 9.67% 9.647% 9.65%

Source: STEOMarch 2015 , AK (SEDS 2013), AEO 2015, calculations from EIA-821.

U.S. vessel bunkering (inc. coastal) in 2013: 1.655 bill gal. AK: 0.114 bill gal. AK = 6.9% of U.S. vessel bunkering. AK est ocean = 0.565* 0.069 = 0.039

AEO2015 Table 50. Freight Transportation, International Shipping: Distillate/Diesel in 2013 (78.3 tril Btu), 1 gal=138,690 Btu

SEDS 2013 updates

Motor Gasoline Revised 12/23/2014

Fuel Ethanol Revised 12/23/2014

Distillate Fuel Oil Released 03/13/2015

No diesel or biodiesel
#### Tornello Fontaine PIERCE EL BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Josh STEIN; Pat McCrory; State of North Carolina; James Allen Joines; Sheriff William T. Schatzman; BJ Barnes, a/k/a Eschol Edward Barnes, Jr.; Nancy Vaughan, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-2030

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 2, 2018

Decided: January 11, 2018

*143Tornello Fontaine Pierce El Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh North Carolina; James R. Morgan, Jr., WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Lonnie Glenn Albright, III, FORSYTH COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, Greensboro, North Carolina; James Demarest Secor, III, Greensboro, North Carolina; Polly D. Sizemore, CITY OF GREENSBORO LEGAL DEPARTMENT, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tornello Fontaine Pierce El Bey appeals the district court’s order dismissing his amended complaint with prejudice. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Pierce El Bey’s informal brief does not raise any specific challenge to the basis for the district court’s disposition of the merits of his claims, Pierce El Bey has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order.*
      *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*

We conclude that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction as Pierce El Bey's false arrest claim should have been raised pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). We further reject Pierce El Bey’s conclusory assertion that the district judge was biased. *See Belue v. Leventhal,*640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011).
#### WORD TO INFO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. FACEBOOK INC., Defendant-Appellee

2017-1431

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

November 8, 2017

Michael D. Saunders, Famey Daniels, PC, San Mateo, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Jonathan Daniel Baker; Steven R. Daniels, William Bryan Farney, Georgetown, TX.

Heidi Lyn Keefe, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Lowell D. Mead, Mark R. Weinstein.

(Moore, Chen, and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.