alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 61638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24298]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL14-98-000]


Arizona Public Service Company; Notice of Institution of Section 
206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On October 3, 2014, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. 
EL14-98-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 
U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation to determine whether 
market-based rate authority for Arizona Public Service Company (APS) in 
the APS balancing authority area and the Phoenix Valley Load Pocket is 
just and reasonable. Arizona Public Service Company, 149 FERC ] 61,013 
(2014).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL14-98-000, established 
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Dated: October 3, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-24298 Filed 10-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. PATRICK MANNING.

July 2, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6309

In Re: WENDALL A. JONES,

Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-04-566) Submitted: June 17, 2005 Decided: July 18, 2005 Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wendall A. Jones, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000), the parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Wendell A. Jones petitions for writ of mandamus, asking this court to direct the magistrate judge *to compel discovery in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) action and to defer or set aside any judgment in that action until discovery has occurred. He also seeks an order compelling the magistrate judge to respond to his motion for partial summary judgment and an extension of time to respond to the respondent’s motion to dismiss. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is available only when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal, In re Catawba Indian Tribe , 973 F.2d 1133, 1136 (4th Cir. 1992). The party seeking mandamus relief bears the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to obtain the relief sought and that his entitlement to relief is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Our review of the district court’s docket sheet reveals that, after Jones filed his mandamus petition, the magistrate judge denied Jones’ motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed his- 3 - § 2254 petition. Therefore, Jones’ mandamus petition is moot. Moreover, to the extent that Jones seeks to set aside the magistrate judge’s final order, he has another available remedy; namely, an appeal from that order. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Jones’ petition for writ of mandamus. 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
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.14

                                 [ALCATEL LOGO]

                             MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

This Agreement is dated and effective as of January 7, 2000, by and between
Alcatel USA Sourcing, L.P. ("Buyer"), having a place of business at 1000 Coit
Road, Plano, Texas 75075 and New Focus, Inc. ("Seller"), having its principle
place of business at 2630 Walsh Avenue, Santa Clara, California 95051-0905.

Whereas, Seller commits to support and manufacture the optoelectronic component
("Product") as noted below for purchase by Customer.

Whereas, Buyer commits to purchase at least [*] of Buyer's total demand,
equating to approximately [*] units, based on acceptable levels of service and
quality from Seller, of the Product noted below from Seller for deliveries
during calendar year 2000 based on Buyer's current usage projections.

       Product and Commercial Issues
       -----------------------------

       - [*]

       - Establishment of safety stock for lead time reduction program as
         mutually agreed upon by both Buyer and Seller.

This Memorandum of Agreement supersedes all previous understandings or
representations made prior to or simultaneous with the execution of this
document, by any party, with respect to the subject matter contained herein.

It is understood that issuance of a purchase order(s) is subject to receipt of
final approval by internal management of Alcatel USA Sourcing, L.P. and mutually
agreed to terms and conditions. It is further understood that should
the-required management approval be withheld, Alcatel USA will not place a
purchase order(s) and will not be subject to penalties, costs or other liability
of any nature.

/s/ DAVE STARK                              /s/ BOB MACDONALD
-----------------------------------         ------------------------------------
Dave Stark                                  Bob MacDonald
Purchasing Team Leader                      Product Marketing Manager
Alcatel USA Sourcing, L.P.                  New Focus, Inc.

/s/ GREG BROCKMANN                          /s/ PAUL SMITH
-----------------------------------         ------------------------------------
Greg Brockmann                              Paul Smith
Manager - Advanced Purchasing               Vice President, GM of
Alcatel USA Sourcing, L.P.                     Telecommunications
                                            New Focus, Inc.

[*] Certain information on this page has been omitted and
    filed separately with the Commission. Confidential treatment
    has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2043 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 457
 108th CONGRESS
   2d Session
                                S. 2043

  To designate a Federal building in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as the 
                  ``Ronald Reagan Federal Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 2, 2004

  Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Santorum) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

                             March 10, 2004

               Reported by Mr. Inhofe, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate a Federal building in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as the 
                  ``Ronald Reagan Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. RONALD REAGAN FEDERAL BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building located at 228 Walnut 
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as the 
``Ronald Reagan Federal Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the building referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Ronald 
Reagan Federal Building.

                                                       Calendar No. 457

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2043

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To designate a Federal building in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as the 
                  ``Ronald Reagan Federal Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 10, 2004

                       Reported without amendment
```
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OFTEXAS 

Arrsnnr.T~~~~ 78711 

November 12, 1973 

The Honorable Joe Resweber. 

County Attorney 

Harris County Courthouse 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Dear Mr. Resweber: 

Opinion No. H- 146 

Re: Is the County Clerk 

required to record a 

certified copy of a 

Limited Partnership 

Certificate recorded 

in the office of the 

Secretary of State of 

Rhode Island? 

Your opinion request advises that the County Clerk of Harris County 

was requested to file a certificate of limited partnership executed and filed 

in the State of Rhode Island under that state’s Uniform Limited Partnership 

Act. The subject partnership expects to do business in Texas as a limited 

partnership, but does not plan to qualify with the Texas Secretary of State 

as a Texas Limited partnership. Article 6132a, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes, 

The Uniform Limited Partnership Act. 

The county clerk desires an opinion as to whether he is required to 

record a certified copy of the certificate filed in Rhode Island. 

Article 6591, V. T. C.S., provides as follows: 

“County clerks shall be the recorders for their 

respective counties; they shall provide and keep in 

their offices well bound booka in which they shall record 

all instruments of writing authorized or required to be 

recorded in the county clerkls office in the mannerhereinafter provided. ” 

The instruments subject to recording are listed in various statutes compiled in Chapter 3 of Title 115, Articlea 6624 through 6646, V. T. C.S. None of 

p. 687 
The Honorable Joe Resweber, page 2 (H-146) 

these statutes authorizes or requires the county clerk to record limited 

partnership agreements; 

No cases are directly in point, but the holdings of related cases 

militate against recording instruments not mentioned in these statutes. In 

Pegram v. Owens, 64 Tex. 475 (1885), the Supreme Court construed an 

informal partnership dissolution agreement wherein Pegram first gave to 

Owens all claims belonging to the partnership. The Supreme Court allowed 

the recording of the instrument because of its last provision, but expressed 

doubt that the first provision alone would have been recordable. 

In Farmers and Merchants’ State Bank of Ranger vi Tullos, 211 S. W. 

847 (Tex. Civ. App., El Paso, 1919, no writ), the court stated that an assignment of lease money rentals is “not a deed, conveyance, or instrument concerning lands or tenements, wi thin the meaning of the registration statute. I’ 

Even if the County Clerk did file the agreement, we doubt that its 

recording would constitute notice to the public of its contents or effect. 

Accordingly, we believe that the clerk is not required to file the outof-state limited partnership agreemht. 

SUMMARY 

The County Clerk of Harris County is not required 

to record a certified copy of a limited partnership agreement recorded in the office of the Secretary of State of 

another state. 

/\Very truly yours, 

u Attorney General of Texas 

p. 688 
The Honorable Joe Resweber, page 3 (H-146) 

APPRO,VED: 

I\ 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman 

Opinion Committee ., 

p. 689 

-
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.

I, M P Vijay Kumar, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report on Form 20-F of Sify Technologies Limited for the year ended March 31, 2012, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in
such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sify Technologies Limited.

Date: August 13, 2012



By:

/s/ M P Vijay KumarName: M P Vijay KumarTitle: Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference to any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.
**Exhibit 24.1**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned directorand/or officer of eLoyalty Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby constitutes and appoints each of Kelly D. Conway and William B. Noon, signing singly, as the undersigned’s true and lawful attorney-in-fact, withfull power and authority and full power of substitution, re-substitution, or revocation, to: 

(a) execute for, in the nameand on behalf of the undersigned, in the undersigned’s capacity as a director and/or officer of the Company, the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2008, together with any and all amendmentsthereto on Form 10-K/A deemed necessary, appropriate, or desirable (collectively, the “Form 10-K”), pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules thereunder; 

(b) file the Form 10-K, with all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission and any stock exchange or market or similar authority on which the Company’s Common Stock is listed for trading and any other governmental or regulatory authority, and otherwise to act for him and on his behalf in connectiontherewith; and 

(c) take any other action of any type whatsoever in connection with the foregoing which, in the opinion ofsuch attorney-in-fact, may be required, appropriate, or desirable to be done in the exercise of any of the rights and powers herein granted, as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do if personally present, herebyratifying and confirming all that such attorney-in-fact, or such attorney-in-fact’s substitute or substitutes, shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this Power of Attorney and the rights and powers herein granted. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Power of Attorney as of this 24th day of February 2009.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of FC Banc Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey A. Wise, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer and Treasurer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as enacted 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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Jeffrey A. Wise                                     
|Jeffrey A. Wise                                         
|Principal Financial and Accounting Officer and Treasurer
|April 26, 2005
1 The Response is deficient for failure to comply with 10th Cir. BAP Local

Rule 8008-1(b) and ECF -12(a). However, as this appeal is hereby dismissed, no

notice of deficient filing shall issue.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN RE UNDERGROUND LLC, doing

business as Real Estate of Jackson

Hole,

Debtor.

BAP No. WY-10-033

GARY A. BARNEY,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

Bankr. No. 09-20040

Adv. No. 09-02017

 Chapter 7

v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL

GERNOT MATTHEIS and GARY

MATTHEIS,

Defendants – Appellants.

June 10, 2010

The matter before the Court is the Response to Order to Show Cause Why

Appeal Should Not be Considered for Dismissal as Interlocutory, filed by

Appellants Gernot Mattheis and Gary Mattheis (“Appellants”) on June 9, 2010

(“Response”).1

 In the Response, Appellants state that: “After appropriate

research and further consideration of the status of the case, the appellants are of

the opinion that an interlocutory appeal is not appropriate or justified. Therefore,

for the reasons stated above, the appellants with this response notify the Court

that they do not object to the Court’s consideration for dismissal of the appeal.” 

The Response is construed as a voluntary motion to dismiss. Fed. R. Bankr. P.

8001(c)(2) (“Motion”).

BAP Appeal No. 10-33 Docket No. 6 Filed: 06/10/2010 Page: 1 of 2
-2-

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) The Motion is GRANTED. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(c)(2); 10th Cir.

BAP L.R. 8016-4(a)(8).

(2) Any deadlines previously set by the Court are VACATED.

(3) This appeal is DISMISSED.

(4) The mandate shall issue immediately. A certified copy of this Order

shall constitute the mandate on appeal.

For the Panel:

Barbara A. Schermerhorn, Clerk of Court

By:

Deputy Clerk

BAP Appeal No. 10-33 Docket No. 6 Filed: 06/10/2010 Page: 2 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-50130

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Edward Harold Williams, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:19-CR-61-1

______________________________

Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Edward Harold Williams 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). Williams has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 3, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-50130 Document: 00516665459 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2023
No. 22-50130

2

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal is moot and that we lack 

jurisdiction. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1998); United States v. 

Clark, 193 F.3d 845, 847-48 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, counsel’s motion 

for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT. 

Case: 22-50130 Document: 00516665459 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2023
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Ignite Solicitation 

 

PHASE II OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODCs) — MATERIALS

Other Direct Costs (ODCs) - Materials (if applicable) 

 

• Provide the requested information below for your Materials ODC. 

• Complete this form for each Materials ODC proposed for your R/R&D effort. If you need to include additional 

 Materials ODCs, please start another version of this form and append the document title with the form number.

Year

Description Vendor

Quantity Total Cost

Exclusive for this contract?

Yes No

Competitively Sourced?

Yes No

Consumable?

Yes No

Does this ODC require the purchase of items from a foreign vendor?

Yes No

If yes, include the "Request to Use a Foreign Vendor/Purchase of Items from a Foreign Vendor" form 

as a PDF or Word document along with your submission files. The form can be found in Chapter 8 of 

the Ignite solicitation at https://sbir.nasa.gov/solicit/80089/detail?data=ch8.

Do you have additional supporting documents for this ODC?

Yes No

If yes, include the supporting documents along with your submission files. 

If no, provide supporting comments for this ODC.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 I 0 0 33

. J OHN KEI TH W HI TE et a l

. v . NI C HOLLE J EANETTE GENS, ADMI NI STRATOR.

In t h i s q u iet t i t l e act i o n , p l ai n t i ff Ni ch o l l e J ean et t e Gen s an d th e d efen d an t s fi led cro s s -m o t i o n s fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t o n t h e d efen d an t s ’ co u n tercl ai m fo r refo rm at i o n o f a d eed

. In an o rd er en t ered on J u l y 1 7 , 2 0 1 7 , th e t ri al co u rt gran t ed t h e
p l ai n t i ff’ s m o t i o n an d d en i ed t h e d efen d an t s’ m o t i o n

. Aft er o b t ai n i n g a cert i fi cat e o f i m m ed i at e rev i ew, t h e d e f e n d an t s o n Au g u st 4 , 2 0 1 7 fi led i d en ti cal t i m el y
ap p li cat io n s fo r i n t erl o cu t o ry rev i ew i n t h is Co u rt (Cas e N o

. A1 8 I0 0 0 8) an d t h e Geo rg i a Su p rem e Co u rt (Cas e No

. S 1 7 I 2 0 2 5 ). On Au g us t 2 4 , 2 0 1 7 , t h e Geo rg i a Su p rem e Co u rt t ran s ferred t he ap p l i cat i o n fi l ed t h ere t o t h i s Co urt

. See Ca s e No

. S1 7 I2 0 2 5

. Bu t b efo re t h e t ran s fer o rd e r wa s recei v ed b y t h i s Co u rt , we g ran t ed t h e d efen d an t s ’ ap p l i cat i o n fo r i nt erl o cu t o ry rev i ew i n Cas e No

. A1 8 I0 0 0 8 b ecau s e a
g ran t o f s u m

m ary ju d g m en t i s rev i ewab l e b y d i rect ap peal

. See Cas e No

. A1 8 I0 0 0 8 (g ran t ed Au g u s t 2 8 , 2 0 1 7 ). Th e d efen d an t s are ad vi s ed t h at i t i s n ei t h er n eces s ary n o r u s efu l u n d er an y ci rcu m s t an ces fo r an ap p eal i n g p art y t o p res en t i d en t i cal ap p li cat i o n s t o t h i s Co u rt October 10, 2017an d th e Su p rem e Co u rt

. Becau s e we hav e al read y g ran ted t h e d efen d an t s ’ ap p l i cat i o n

i n Cas e No

. A1 8 I0 0 08 , t h i s i d en t i cal ap p l i cat i o n i s hereb y DISM ISSED as

s u p erfl u o u s

. C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 10/10/2017