alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 30615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15305]



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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Dkt. C-3652]


Hughes Danbury Optical Systems, Inc., et al.; Prohibited Trade 
Practices, and Affirmative Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Consent order.

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

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged violations of federral law 
prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of 
competition, this consent order prohibits, among other things, the 
respondents from enforcing the exclusivity provisions contained in a 
teaming agreement--between Hughes Danbury Optical Systems, Inc. and 
Xinetics, Inc.--thereby ensuring that the Boeing Corp. team has a 
source for deformable mirrors other than Itek Optical Systems, once 
Itek is acquired by Hughes. The order also prohibits the respondents 
from accessing proprietary information from Itek regarding the Boeing 
team's airborne laser technical design or the cost of its adaptive 
optics system.

DATES: Complaint and Order issued April 30, 1996.\1\

    \1\ Copies of the Complaint and the Decision and Order are 
available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, H-130, 6th 
Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Malester, FTC/S-2308, Washington, 
DC 20580. (202) 326-2682.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Thursday, February 22, 1996, there was 
published in the Federal Register, 61 FR 6847, a proposed consent 
agreement with analysis In the Matter of Hughes Danbury Optical 
Systems, Inc., et al., for the purpose of soliciting public comment. 
Interested parties were given sixty (60) days in which to submit 
comments, suggestions or objections regarding the proposed form of the 
order.
    No comments having been received, the Commission has ordered the 
issuance of the complaint in the form contemplated by the agreement, 
made its jurisdictional findings and entered an order to cease and 
desist, as set forth in the proposed consent agreement, in disposition 
of this proceeding.

(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interpret or apply sec. 5, 38 
Stat. 719, as amended; sec. 7, 38 Stat. 731, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 
45, 18)
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15305 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Exhibit 32.1

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 China Multimedia, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, President and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

> 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Wilson Cheung



Wilson Cheung, President and Chairman

January 30, 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

HAKIF NAMANI,

Petitioner

v.

BEZARK, LERNER & DEVIRGILIS, P.C.

AND STUART WINEGRAD, ESQUIRE,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 49 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of July, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 790 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 790

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 28, 2009.
Whereas hundreds of thousands of men and women have served this Nation in 
        building its nuclear defense since World War II;
Whereas these dedicated American workers paid a high price for their service and 
        have developed disabling or fatal illnesses as a result of exposure to 
        beryllium, ionizing radiation, toxic substances, and other hazards that 
        are unique to the production and testing of nuclear weapons;
Whereas these workers were put at individual risk without their knowledge and 
        consent in order to develop a nuclear weapons program;
Whereas these patriotic men and women deserve to be recognized for their 
        contribution, service, and sacrifice towards the defense of our great 
        Nation; and
Whereas, on May 20, 2009, the Senate passed S. Res. 151, designating a national 
        day of remembrance on October 30, 2009, for nuclear weapons program 
        workers: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of a national day of remembrance 
        for American nuclear weapons program workers and uranium miners, 
        millers, and haulers; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to support and 
        participate in appropriate ceremonies, programs, and other activities to 
        recognize a national day of remembrance for past and present workers in 
        America's nuclear weapons program.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
### COURT OF APPEALS CLERK'S OFFICE San Antonio, Texas. 

# Cause SWy^l^vsState. Please return this card when the execution ofthe enclosed mandate has been carried out. Executed on 

# ^ by

_ AU^ S•'^UYXfU^i^ Sincerely yours, Title 

# CMj^
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned, Bernard Chan, the Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Treasurer of ASIA
DOCUMENT TRANSITION, INC. (the “Company”), DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.  The Company's Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter endedDecember
31, 2009 (the “Report”), fully
complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.  Information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of the Company.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned
has executed this statement this11thday ofFebruary,
2010.





/s/ Bernard ChanBernard ChanChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to ASIA DOCUMENT TRANSITION, INC. and will be retained by ASIA
DOCUMENT TRANSITION, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 on Form 10-Q/A of Lightlake Therapeutics Inc. (the “Company") for the three month ended January 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Dr. Roger Crystal, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 results of operations of the Company.








Date: 11/09/11                           By: /s/ Dr. Roger Crystal


Dr. Roger Crystal


Chief Executive Officer





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Annual Report of Annapolis Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Margaret Theiss Faison, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|               |  |                           
|-------------- |  | --------------------------
|March 30, 2009 |  | /s/ Margaret Theiss Faison
|               |  | Margaret Theiss Faison    
|               |  | Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29745-29746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14837]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP96-539-000]


Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

June 6, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 23, 1996, Columbia Gulf Transmission 
Company (Columbia Gulf), 2603 Augusta STE 125, Houston, Texas 77057-
5637, filed in Docket No. CP96-539-000 a request pursuant to Sections 
157.205 and 157.211 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural 
Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 157.211) for authorization to establish a new 
interconnection in Louisiana, under Columbia Gulf's blanket 
certification issued in Docket No. CP83-496-000 pursuant to Section 7 
of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request that 
is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Columbia Gulf proposes to construct and operate a new 
interconnection point

[[Page 29746]]

with Central Louisiana Electric Company, Inc. (CLECO) for providing 
transportation services. The new point will be located in St. Mary 
Parish, Louisiana and was requested by CLECO to serve the Teche Power 
Plant. The estimated quantities of natural gas to be delivered will be 
85,000 Dth/day-12.6 Bcf/annually. The cost is approximately $186,000 
with CLECO reimbursing Columbia Gulf 100% of the total actual 
construction cost. The services provided through the interconnection 
will be on an interruptible basis and will not affect Columbia Gulf's 
peak day and annual deliveries and the total volumes delivered will not 
exceed total volumes authorized prior to this request. Columbia Gulf 
states that this new interconnection is not prohibited by its existing 
tariff and that it has sufficient capacity to accomplish deliveries 
without detriment or disadvantage to other customers.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lindwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-14837 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50334

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SENAIDA GONZALES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-15-1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Senaida Gonzales has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Gonzales has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 21, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-50334 Document: 00512540435 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2014
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 30599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15234]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-270-000]

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

June 11, 1996.
    Take notice that on June 6, 1996, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), tendered for filing to become part of Northern's FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets 
proposed to be effective July 6, 1996:

Second Revised Sheet No. 134
Second Revised Sheet No. 135
Second Revised Sheet No. 136
First Revised Sheet No. 137
Second Revised Sheet No. 138
Second Revised Sheet No. 139
Second Revised Sheet No. 140
Second Revised Sheet No. 141
First Revised Sheet No. 142
First Revised Sheet No. 144
Second Revised Sheet No. 441
First Revised Sheet No. 442

    Northern states that it is herein proposing a number of 
modifications to simplify, clarify and enhance flexibility within its 
firm and interruptible storage service Rate Scheduled FDD and IDD, 
respectively. Northern is not proposing any change to the rates or rate 
structure.
    Northern states that copies of the filing were served upon 
Northern's customers and interested State Commissions.
    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 and Regulations. All such petitions or protests must as provided 
in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. All protests will 
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action 
to be taken in this proceeding, but will not serve to make Protestant a 
party 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 inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15234 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Tina S. McCLANAHAN, Appellant.

No. WD 51957.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 8, 1996.

*490Raymond L. Legg, Dist. Defender, Hannibal, for appellant.

James Bradley Funk, Asst. Pros. Atty., Macon County, Macon, for respondent.

Before ELLIS, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was found guilty of a class B misdemeanor of first degree trespass in Macon County Associate Circuit Court pursuant to § 569.140, RSMo, 1994. This court finds that the trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, because the evidence presented was sufficient to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that she entered upon Macon School property unlawfully. Rule 30.25(b).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorraine MCCORD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-20138.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 19, 2003.

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Lorraine McCord (“McCord”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Government in its suit to collect on a promissory note. McCord argues for the first time on appeal that the Government’s delay in bringing its complaint was unreasonable, that the Government’s Certificate of Indebtedness was not based upon the personal knowledge of the affiant, and that the Government’s evidence did not establish who owns the note. This court will not address these arguments raised for the first time on appeal. *See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co.,*183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.1999).

McCord asserts that she presented sufficient evidence to show that there were genuine issues of material fact as to the date of default and the amount of the debt. *392“To recover on a promissory note, the government must show (1) the defendant signed it, (2) the government is the present owner or holder, and (3) the note is in default.” *United States v. Lawrence,*276 F.3d 193, 197 (5th Cir.2001). Because the Government filed a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the burden shifted to McCord to provide competent summary judgment evidence setting forth specific facts that demonstrate a genuine issue for trial. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). McCord did not dispute that she defaulted on the note, and the exact date of default is not a material fact. *See Lawrence,*276 F.3d at 197. The evidence McCord presented to demonstrate a genuine issue as to the amount owed was not sufficient to meet her burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

AFFIRMED. The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Bruce HARDESTY, Appellant.

No. WD 47235.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 4, 1994.

David S. Durbin, Kansas City, for appellant.

*719Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Stacy L. Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, C.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from judgment of conviction for receiving stolen property pursuant to § 570.-080, RSMo 1986, and sentence of four years.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
Amendment to Employment Agreement- Jack F. Callahan



 Exhibit 10.38 
 November 21, 2008 
 The Employment Agreement dated April 26, 2007 between us and Jack F. Callahan is hereby amended as follows:

 The section of the Employment Agreement entitled “Severance” is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: 
 As an Executive Officer, you will also be eligible for benefits under the Dean Foods Company Executive Severance Plan (“Severance Plan”). In
summary, according to the Severance Plan, if your employment is terminated at any time as a result of a “qualifying termination,” meaning your voluntary termination for good reason, or your involuntary termination without cause, all as
defined in the Severance Plan, you will receive payment of all base salary accrued through the date of termination, prior year’s bonus to the extent earned but not paid and target bonus through the date of termination. In addition, you will be
eligible to receive a severance payment equivalent to two years of your base salary and target bonuses, less lawful deductions. You will also receive a lump sum cash payment for the “in the money” value of all options, and the fair market
value of all RSUs, that would vest over the 24 month period following the termination date. You will be required to execute a release of all claims and such other agreements as the Company may deem necessary or appropriate in order to receive such
severance pay. The actual terms of the Severance Plan will govern your rights to severance and not this letter.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our report included in this Form 10-K into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statement File No. 333-30715.


/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
San Francisco, California
March 29, 2000


EXHIBIT 23.2

 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-30715 of PG&E Funding LLC on Form S-3, as amended,
of our report dated March 29, 2000, appearing in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of PG&E Funding LLC for the year ended December 31,
1999.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche  LLP
San Francisco, California