alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 106 (Friday, May 31, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 27343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13639]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. RP94-367-008 and RP95-31-015, et al.]


National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Tariff Filing

May 24, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 21, 1996, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets 
proposed to be effective April 1, 1996:

Sub. Fourth Revised Sheet No. 17
Sub. First Revised Sheet No. 30
Sub. Original Sheet No. 650

    National states that on March 22, 1996, National submitted its 
Compliance Filing in the above-captioned proceedings. On April 1, 5, 
and 12, 1996, National submitted corrections to the Compliance Filing. 
The above-listed sheets reflect corrections as a result of further 
informal discussions with some customers.
    National further states that copies of this filing were served upon 
company's jurisdictional customers and upon the Regulatory Commissions 
of the States of New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Massachusetts, 
and New Jersey.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C., 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). 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 proceeding. Copies of this filing are 
on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-13639 Filed 5-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

QIANG WANG,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 14

- 16092

D.C. No. 3:12

- cv

- 05579

- WHA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2016 **

Before: WALLACE , LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Qiang Wang appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

motion to vacate a set tlement agreement he entered in to with Palo Alto Networks,

Inc. that resulted in the voluntary dismissal of his patent infringement claim.

We lack jurisdiction to hear Wang’s appeal on its merits

. See 28 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 16092

§ 1295(a)(1) (t he United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has

exclusive jurisdiction over an appeal from a district court if the jurisdiction of the

district court was based, “in wh ole or in part” , on 28 U.S.C. § 1338 ) ; Breed v.

Hughes Aircraft Co.

, 253 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2001)

.

We therefore transfer the entire case to the Federal Circuit. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1631; Breed , 253 F.3d at 1180; see also Amity Rubberized Pen Co. v. Mkt. Quest

Grp. Inc. , 793 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[T]ransfer will generally be in the

interest of justice, unless it is apparent that the matter to be transferred is frivolous

or was filed in bad faith.”)

. The clerk shall transmit all materials lodged with this

c ourt to the clerk of that court.

TRANSFERRED.
Exhibit 32



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 Greater China Acquisition Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Tay, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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; and



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



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, another 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/ William Tay

By: William Tay

Title: Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Director



Dated: July 19, 2007
MICHIGAN

“PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES” Elmer L. Cerano, Executive Director

PROTECTION & ADVOCACY
SERVICE, INC.

Kathy McGeathy

President November 14, 2008

Flint

Tom Landry Via Facsimile (248) 370-4474 & US MAIL
Ist Vice President

Highland

Kate Pew Wolters . .
2nd Vice President Victor Zambardi

Grand Rapids Oakland University General Counsel
Ronald D. Bush, II 203 Wilson Hall
Secretary Rochsester, MI 48309

Detroit

Mark Lezotte Re: Micah Fialka-Feldman

Treasurer

Detroit

Pamela Bellamy, Ph.D Dear Mr. Zambardi:
Immediate Past President
Lansing Over the last eleven months my client and his family and friends have tried to
Sheila Faunce resolve this matter by every means other than resorting to litigation. It continues

Director, Emeritus to be my client’s sincere belief that litigation is not necessary to resolve this

East Lansing ; eee aU a ;
matter if only Oakland University drops its discriminatory housing rule and allow

Robert W. Ryan : ;
Director Emeritus him to live on campus.
Lansing
Frederick A. Swegles In your letter of November 7, 2008, you denied Micah’s request for a reasonable
ee Emeritus accommodation. Additionally, you characterized the request as a “fundamental

juron

alteration of the OPTIONS Program.” This is not what we requested.

Mark Brewer, Esq.
Mt. Clemens : A = a nants
I hope to clear-up any misunderstanding. This is a housing issue. Micah is a

ee student at Oakland University. But for his disability he would be enrolled in a
program leading toward a degree. We are requesting, as a reasonable

— accommodation, that the university waive its rule that only students “enrolled in
coursework leading toward a degree” be eligible for on-campus housing. This is
Ann E. Manning

Clarion necessary to afford Micah the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling as is

required under federal law. See Fair Housing Act at 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B).
Susan L. Odgers, Ph.D., ABD

Traverse City : . . . .
So we are asking again that you reconsider your decision. However, given the
— months of effort to resolve this without litigation we feel we have been left with

no alternative. Please let me know no later than 5:00pm on Monday, November
Ernest A. Reynolds

Roscommon

Frederick F (Rick) Swegles, Esq

Port Huron

Livonia Office: Main Office: Marquette Office:

Livonia Corporate Towers 4095 Legacy Parkway, Suite 500 * Lansing, MI 48911-4263 129 W. Baraga Ave., Suite A * Marquette, MI 49855-4644
29200 Vassar Blvd., Suite 200 * Livonia, MI 48152-2116 517.487.1755 (Voice or TTY) 906.228.5910

248.473.2990 800.288.5923 (Information and Referral) 866.928.5910 (Toll Free)

1.800.414.3956 (Toll Free) 517.487.0827 (Fax) 906.228.9148 (Fax)

248.473.4104 (Fax)
MPAS web site: www.mpas.org


Victor Zambardi
November 14, 2008
Page Two

17, 2008, if the university is willing to change its decision. If I do not hear from you, it is my
intent to file a complaint in federal district court next week to protect and enforce my client’s
rights.

Sincerely,

AEE the

Chris E. Davis
Attorney

CED/vIl
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**PERVASIVE SOFTWARE INC.**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

Ramal Acquisition Corp. 

 

Ontario Acquisition Corp. 

 

Pervasive Software International Inc. 

 

Pervasive Software Co., Ltd.—Japan 

 

Pervasive Software GmbH—Germany 

 

Pervasive Software N.V.—Belgium 

 

Pervasive Software Limited—United Kingdom 

 

Pervasive Software S.A.R.L.—France 

 

PVSW Software Technologies India Private Limited—India 

 

Pervasive Software Company—Canada
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael J. Culotta, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PharMerica Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b. [Intentionally omitted]

c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b. Any fraud,
whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                       |  |                                                     
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|DATE: October 30, 2008
|                       | 
|                       |  | /s/ Michael J. Culotta                              
|                       |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3582

To permit individuals to continue health plan coverage of services while

participating in approved clinical studies.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 5, 1996

Mrs. LOWEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To permit individuals to continue health plan coverage of

services while participating in approved clinical studies.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improved Patient Ac5 cess to Clinical Studies Act of 1996’’.

6 SEC. 2. COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATING IN

7 APPROVED CLINICAL STUDIES.

8 (a) PERMITTING PARTICIPATION IN APPROVED CLIN9 ICAL STUDIES.—A health plan may not deny (or limit or
2

•HR 3582 IH

1 impose additional conditions on) coverage of items and

2 services furnished to an enrollee if—

3 (1) the enrollee is participating in an approved

4 clinical study,

5 (2) the items and services are furnished accord6 ing to the design of the study or to treat conditions

7 resulting from participation in the study, and

8 (3) the items and services would otherwise be

9 covered under the plan except for the fact that they

10 are provided in connection with participation in such

11 a study.

12 A health plan may not discriminate against an enrollee

13 on the basis of the enrollee’s participation in such a study.

14 (b) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in subsection (a) shall

15 be construed as requiring a health plan to provide for pay16 ment for items and services normally paid for as part of

17 an approved clinical study.

18 (c) APPROVED CLINICAL STUDY DEFINED.—In this

19 section, the term ‘‘approved clinical study’’ means—

20 (1) a research study approved by the Secretary

21 of Health and Human Services, the Director of the

22 National Institutes of Health, the Commissioner of

23 the Food and Drug Administration, the Secretary of

24 Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Defense, or a

25 qualified nongovernmental research entity (as de-
3

•HR 3582 IH

1 fined in guidelines of the National Institute of

2 Health), or

3 (2) a peer-reviewed and approved research pro4 gram, as defined by the Secretary of Health and

5 Human Services, conducted for the primary purpose

6 of determining whether or not a treatment is safe,

7 efficacious, or having any other characteristic of a

8 treatment which must be demonstrated in order for

9 the treatment to be medically necessary or appro10 priate.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRAINTECH, INC., a Nevada corporation,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v.

ADIL SHAFI, an individual,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff,

v.

FREDERICK WEIDINGER, an individual,

Counterclaim Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 09-10454

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan

LETTERS ROGATORY

The People of the United States of America, to the Appropriate Judicial Authority

in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

GREETINGS:

WHEREAS, a certain action is pending in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Michigan, in which BRAINTECH is Plaintiff

1

and Adil Shafi, a resident

1

Braintech Inc., was dismissed from the case by order dated June 3, 2010, but remains a party to the

case on the counterclaim of Defendant Shafi.

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 47 Filed 10/12/10 Page 1 of 3
2

of the State of Michigan, is a Defendant, and Frederick Weidinger is an additional party

counterclaim defendant and a resident of the State of Virginia.

WHEREAS, it having been made known to us that the testimony of the following

witness of the Province of British Columbia, Canada, to-wit: Edward White [address to

be inserted], is necessary for use at the trial of the issues in said action and without the

testimony of whom justice cannot be completely done between the parties;

WE, THEREFORE REQUEST that in furtherance of justice, you will cause said

witnesses, to appear before the person authorized to administer oaths at the offices of

Ellis Business Lawyers #440-319 West Pender Street, Vancouver, BC, V6B 1T3, or some

other place as agreed by the parties, at a precise time and place by you to be fixed, and

there to answer, under oaths or affirmations, the questions, document requests and

interrogatories to be propounded by counsel for the respective parties and said

questions and answers to be committed and reduced to writing, and thereafter duly

signed by said witnesses under oath or affirmation, and thereafter return said deposition

to us under cover, duly closed and sealed, postage prepaid, together with these

presents, addressed to David J. Weaver, Clerk of the Court, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Michigan, Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette

Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan, United States of America 48226, with copies to counsel

for the parties.

And we shall be ready and willing to do the same for you in a similar case when

required.

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 47 Filed 10/12/10 Page 2 of 3
3

WITNESS the Honorable Victoria A. Roberts, United States District Court Judge

for the Eastern District of Michigan, United States of America, on this ___ day of

October, 2010.

_______________________________

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Court Judge

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 47 Filed 10/12/10 Page 3 of 3
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1076 

To improve the accuracy of fur product labeling, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 19, 2009 

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. LEVIN, and Mr. FEINGOLD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To improve the accuracy of fur product labeling, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Truth in Fur Labeling 

5 Act of 2009’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 1076 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EXEMPTION TO FUR PRODUCT LA2 BELING REQUIREMENTS FOR PRODUCTS 

3 CONTAINING RELATIVELY SMALL QUAN4 TITIES OR VALUES OF FUR. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2(d) of the Fur Products 

6 Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 69(d)) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘; except that’’ and all that follows through ‘‘contained 

8 therein’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date that is 90 days 

11 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

12 SEC. 3. REVISION OF FUR PRODUCTS NAME GUIDE. 

13 Not later than 90 days after the date of the enact14 ment of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall ini15 tiate a rulemaking to revise the Fur Products Name Guide 

16 (16 C.F.R. 301.0) in accordance with section 553 of title 

17 5, United States Code. 

18 SEC. 4. STATE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE LABELING OF 

19 FUR PRODUCTS. 

20 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 12 of the Fur Products 

21 Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 69j) is amended— 

22 (1) by striking ‘‘The provisions of’’ and insert23 ing ‘‘(a) The provisions of’’; and 

24 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

25 ‘‘(b) Nothing in this Act shall preclude or deny any 

26 right of any State or political subdivision thereof to adopt 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•S 1076 IS

1 or enforce any provision of State or local law that provides 

2 more restrictive labeling requirements for fur products 

3 than what is provided for in this Act.’’. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date that is 90 days 

6 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARY SCHAEFFER,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY,

Defendant.

/

Case No. 08-15000

HONORABLE AVERN COHN

JUDGMENT

For the reasons stated in the Memorandum and Order entered and filed on this date,

judgment is entered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff and the case is

DISMISSED.

DAVID WEAVER

Dated: June 9, 2010 By: s/Julie Owens 

Deputy Clerk

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of

record on this date, June 9, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160
EXHIBIT 10.45



 Exhibit 10.45 
 Dominion Resources, Inc. 
 2009 Base Salaries for Named Executive Officers* 
 The 2009 base salaries for Dominion’s named executive officers are as follows: Thomas F. Farrell, II, Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer–$1,200,000; Thomas N. Chewning, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer–$697,513; Mark F. McGettrick, Executive Vice President (President and Chief Executive Officer–Dominion Generation)–$650,900; Paul D.
Koonce, Executive Vice President (Chief Executive Officer–Dominion Energy)–$497,900; and David A. Christian (President and Chief Nuclear Officer–Dominion Nuclear)–$553,800. 
  

	*	Effective March 1, 2009
NO. 12-09-00382-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MARK ANTHONY MARTINEZ, § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH 

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea bargain, to aggravated kidnapping with the intent 

to terrorize. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 20.04(a)(5) (Vernon 2003). The trial court found 

Appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at imprisonment for seventeen years. We have received 

the trial court=s certification showing that this is a plea bargain case and Appellant has no right to 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered November 18, 2009.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
SCPW-20-0000544
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

PHILLIP J. BARKER, Petitioner,

vs. CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, Administrator, H awai # i Criminal Justice Data Center, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (Case No. 1CSP-20-0000183)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge To # oto # o, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of petitioner Phillip J. Barker’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on September 2, 2020, the document attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to the requested extraordinary writ from this court. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-20-0000544 30-SEP-2020 02:20 PMredress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested

action); Barnett v. Broderick, 84 Hawai # i 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996) (with respect to a public official, mandamus relief is available to compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the individual’s claim is clear and certain, the official’s duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is available). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, September 30, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Fa # auuga To # oto # o

2