alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29195-29196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14063]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. MT98-9-001]


Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

May 21, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 18, 1998, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of

[[Page 29196]]

America (Natural) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 360, to 
be effective March 19, 1998.
    Natural states that the purpose of this filing is to revise its 
plan for compliance with 18 CFR 161.3(e), (f), (g), (k), and 18 CFR 
250.16(b)(1). On February 17, 1998, Natural tendered tariff sheets to 
modify Section 35.1 of the General Terms and Conditions of its tariff 
to comply with the separation of personnel and facilities required by 
the Commission's Order Following Staff Audit Report and Notice of 
Proposed Civil Penalties issued January 16, 1998 in Docket Nos. RP97-
232-000, et. al. This revised sheet is being submitted to implement 
changes to that compliance plan required by the Order on Standards of 
Conduct and Compliance Plan issued April 21, 1998, in Docket No. MG98-
6-000.
    Natural requested any waivers which may be required to permit the 
tendered tariff sheet to become effective March 19, 1998, consistent 
with the effective date requested in the original filing herein on 
February 17, 1998.
    Natural states that copies of the filing have been mailed to 
Natural's customers, interested state regulatory agencies and all 
parties set out on the official service list in Docket No. MT98-9-000.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such 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 proceedings.
    Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are 
available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-14063 Filed 5-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2010349EN.01000501.xml

| 22.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/5

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 15 December 2010

amending Commission Decision 2007/320/EC of 22 March 2007 setting up the Member States’ Expert Group on Digitisation and Digital Preservation (1), in order to extend its period of validity

1

2010/C 349/04

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Whereas:

| (1) | It is appropriate that the work of the expert group denominated Member States’ Expert Group on Digitisation and Digital Preservation should continue unhindered until the end of 2013 under the same rules established by that Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

It is appropriate that the work of the expert group denominated Member States’ Expert Group on Digitisation and Digital Preservation should continue unhindered until the end of 2013 under the same rules established by that Decision.

| (2) | Decision 2007/320/EC should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Decision 2007/320/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

In Article 7 ‘Applicability’ of Decision 2007/320/EC, the year ‘2010’ is replaced by ‘2013’

Done at Brussels, 15 December 2010.

For the Commission

Neelie KROES

Vice-President

---

(1)  OJ L 119, 9.5.2007, p. 45.

1

---
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
W.L. GORE & ASSOCIAT ES, INC., Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

MEDTRONIC, INC., MED TRONIC USA, INC. , AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC., Defendants

- Appellees.

______________________

2012

- 1538

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in No. 10

- CV

- 0441, Judge M ark S. Davis.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________

A HMED J. D AVIS , Fish & Richardson, P.C., of Washin gton, DC, argued for plaintiff

- appellant. With him on the brief were J UANITA R. B ROOKS , of San Diego, California, and S USAN M. C OLETTI , of Wilmington, Delaware.

J AMES J. E LACQUA , Skadden Arps, of Palo Alto, Cal ifornia, argued for defendants

- appellees. With him on the brief were K AREN D. M C D ANIEL and R ACHEL C. H UGHEY ,Merchant & Gould P.C., of Minneapolis, Minnesota; and R YAN J. F LETC HER of Denver, Colorado.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (R ADER , Chief Judge, N EWMAN , and D YK , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

September 12, 2013 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk
RASHEEM JOHN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-4166

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 6, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Columbia County.

Wesley R. Douglas, Judge.

Rasheem John, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

 WOLF, OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY, JJ., concur
Exhibit 13.2

                            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 Annual Report of Mer Telemanagement Solutions Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Shlomi Hagai, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (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.


/s/Shlomi Hagai*
----------------
Shlomi Hagai
Chief Financial Officer

March 31, 2006


* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                    
|                                                                                                 
|Gulf LNG, Mississippi Liquefied Natural Gas Imports from Trinidad and Tobago (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                 
|Gulf LNG, Mississippi Liquefied Natural Gas Imports from Trinidad and Tobago (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 2,820  | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
*December 22, 2017*

2017-Ohio-9186.]

*14792017-1244.

#### Bank of Am., N.A. v. Brown.

Cuyahoga App. No. 105954. On appellee’s motion to strike the notice of appeal and the memo in support of jurisdiction filed by appellant. Motion denied as moot.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 27721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13357]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-2-59-001]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

May 14, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 8, 1998, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), tendered for filing to become part of Northern's FERC Gas 
Tariff, the following tariff sheets proposed to become effective on 
June 1,1998:

Fifth Revised Volume No. 1

Substitute Eighth Revised Sheet No. 54
Substitute Seventh Revised Sheet No. 61
Substitute Seventh Revised Sheet No. 62
Substitute Seventh Revised Sheet No. 63
Substitute Seventh Revised Sheet No. 64

    Northern states that the reason for this filing is to resubmit 
Sheets Nos. 54, 61, 62, 63 and 64 to correct the Mainline fuel True-up 
Adjustment as derived on a Revised Exhibit No. 2 and to correct the UAF 
percentage because of administrative oversights.
    Northern states that copies of the filing were served upon 
Northern's customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such 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 proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-13357 Filed 5-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 12-6981.

#### Beck *v.*Nooth, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 28, 2009 

d0921 

Order 

 

September 28, 2009 

138870 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138870 

 COA: 280835 

Ingham CC: 06-000224-FC 

STANLEY ALBERT PRICE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 17, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL 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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Quad M Solutions, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2019, I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:



| | (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Quad M Solutions, Inc for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2019, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2019, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Quad M Solutions Inc





|/s/ Pat Dileo                                                                                                             | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) | 



Dated: August 19, 2019



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Quad M Solutions, Inc and will be retained by Quad M Solutions, Inc and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 12

                     MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
             COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                           (Dollars in Millions)

                                                  Nine Months Ended
                                                     September 30
                                                    -------------
                                                  1996         1995
                                                  ----         ----
1.  EARNINGS

     a) Income before interest expense,
         income taxes and undistributed
         equity earnings (3).................  $  738.2      $  675.8

     b) Single Business Tax (2)..............      24.0          22.9

     c) Portion of rental expense
         representative of the
         interest factor (1)(2)..............       9.3           9.9
                                               --------      --------
     Total 1(a) through 1(c).................  $  771.5      $  708.6
                                               --------      --------
2.  FIXED CHARGES

     a) Total interest expense including
         capital lease obligations .........   $   63.3      $   68.6

     b) Capitalized interest................        1.5           1.2

     c) Portion of rental expense
         representative of the
         interest factor (1)................        9.3           9.9
                                               --------      --------
     Total 2(a) through 2(c)................   $   74.1      $   79.7
                                               --------      --------
3.  RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES......      10.41          8.89
                                                  =====          ====


(1)  One-third of rental expense is considered to be the amount
     representing return on capital.
     
(2)  Earnings are income before income taxes and fixed charges.  Since
     the Single Business Tax (the Tax) and rental expense have already
     been deducted, the Tax and the one-third portion of rental
     expense considered to be fixed charges are added back.
     
(3)  The results for the first nine months of 1995 reflect a $75.3
     million pretax credit primarily from settlement gains resulting
     from lump sum pension payments from the pension plan to former
     employees who left the business in the nonmanagement work force
     restructuring.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Ralph Esposito, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 418]

*1037Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 3, 2002, which dismissed claimant’s appeal from a decision of an Administrative Law Judge as untimely.

By decision dated and mailed May 24, 2002, claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause and was assessed a recoverable overpayment of benefits. Although claimant received the decision shortly after it was mailed and read the back of it, he failed—according to his testimony—to file an appeal until June 24, 2002 because his efforts were focused on his new job. Notwithstanding claimant’s proffered excuse for failing to comply with the strict 20-day statute of limitations period set forth in Labor Law § 621 (1), we find no reason to disturb the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which dismissed claimant’s appeal as untimely *(see Matter of Del Valle [Commissioner of Labor],*285 AD2d 888 [2001]). Claimant’s attempt to argue the underlying merits of the denial of his application for unemployment insurance benefits is, therefore, not properly before this Court *(see id.).*

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
412 P.2d 479

#### Thomas E. WATKINS, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona and Mesa Mobile Homes, Incorporated, Respondents.

No. 1 CA-IC 61.

Court of Appeals of Arizona.

March 29, 1966.

Lorin G. Shelley, Phoenix, for petitioner.

Robert K. Park, Chief Counsel, by Glen D. Webster, Joyce Volts, Phoenix, for the respondent, Industrial Commission.

STEVENS, Chief Judge.

The Claimant suffered an industrially related accident on 28 September 1962, while working alone on a trailer at Mesa Mobile Homes, Inc. This company is a family owned corporation which was controlled by the Claimant and his wife at the date of the accident. Claimant testified that he stepped off a ladder and fell to the ground, landing on his shoulders and head. His attending physician reported he sustained a concussion, and contusions of the head, neck and shoulders.

The issues raised by the Claimant by his petition for writ of certiorari are:

1) Did Claimant suffer permanent physical functional disability as a result of the accident ?

2) Is Claimant in need of further medical treatment?

The Commission issued an Award and Findings on 20 October 1963, awarding accident benefits and temporary compensation until 3 September 1963, and finding that Claimant had no physical disability as a result of the accident. This Award reflected the conclusions of the medical board which examined the Claimant on 3 September 1963. The Claimant filed a motion for rehearing, and a formal hearing was held at which lay and medical testimony was introduced. The evidence presented by the Claimant to substantiate his allegation of continuing symptoms was subjective. No testimony demonstrating objective findings or indicia of symptoms which resulted from Claimant’s industrial accident, appears in the record before us. The medical experts who testified stated they had made no objective findings which would support Claimant’s allegation of physical disability. The medical board specifically concluded that there was no further need for medical examination or treatment.

It is the opinion of this Court that the Award and Findings of the Commission are supported by the evidence.

Award affirmed.

CAMERON and DONOFRIO, JJ., concur.
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|No chart available.                                                        
|No chart available.                                                        
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Tennessee Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Shale Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
No. 12-6921.

#### Randleman *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.