alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30563-30564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15149]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1302-000]


Northwest Wind Partners, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

June 19, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Northwest Wind Partners, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket

[[Page 30564]]

authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities 
and assumptions of liability, is July 20, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#165053445559787a7f787345636666796462567073647538717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87c1c2d5c4c8e9ebeee9e2d4f2f7f7e8f5f3c7e1e2f5e4a9e0e8f1">[email protected]</span></a> or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15149 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
@article{1212026,
  author = {Huong Giang Nguyen and Blaza Toman and Roger D. van Zee and Carsten Prinz and Matthias Thommes and Riaz Ahmad and David Kiska and Jamie Salinger and Ian Walton and Krista Walton and Darren Broom and Mike Benham and Humera Ansari and Ronny Pini and Camille Petit and Jürgen Adolphs and Andreas Schreiber and Toshihiro Shigeoka and Yuko Konishi and Kazuyuki Nakai and Matthias Henninger and Thomas Petrzik and Can Kececi and Vladimir Martis and Thomas Pasche and Enzo Mangano and Stefano Brandani},
  title = {Reference Isotherms for Water Vapor Sorption on Nanoporous Carbon: Results of an Interlaboratory Study},
  year = {2023},
  number = {29},
  month = {2023-05-26 04:05:00},
  publisher = {Adsorption},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935539},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10450-023-00383-1},
  language = {en},
}
@conference{1209596,
  author = {Rick Candell and Karl Montgomery and Mohamed Hany and Susruth Sudhakaran and Justin Albrecht and Dave Cavalcanti},
  title = {Operational Impacts of IEEE 802.1Qbv Scheduling on a Collaborative Robotic Scenario},
  year = {2022},
  month = {2022-10-17 04:10:00},
  publisher = {48th Annual Conference of the Industrial Electronics Society IECON 2022 Conference, Brussels, BE},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935097},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1109/IECON49645.2022.9968494},
  language = {en},
}
#### ALFRED PEARSON & CO. (PTY.) Limited v. HAYES (STEADMAN et al., third-parties defendant).

Civ. No. 45 — 341.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

April 25, 1949.

White & Case, New York City (J. Adam Murphy and Robert F. Little, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Lawrence I. Gerber, New York City, for third-parties defendant.

KAUFMAN, District Judge.

Interrogatories are propounded pursuant to Rule 33, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 28 U.S.C.A. Some of the interrogatories require the production of copies of documents. To these plaintiff objects, contending that these documents may be made available only on an application for discovery and inspection pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Without attempting to collate all of the cases considering this question, it is apparent that there is irreconcilable conflict among the decisions.1 The only difference between the discovery procedure afforded by Rule 33 and that provided under Rule 34 is that there must be a judicial determination of “good cause” in a motion made under the latter rule. The object of Rules *21126 to 37 inclusive is to provide for comprehensive means of discovery and inspection. The objections to the present application seem technical and, if sustained, can result only in the useless duplication of another motion under Rule 34 when, as in this case, the court is satisfied that good cause exists for the discovery of the documents in question. Since the third parties defendant would be entitled to inspect the original documents had motion been made under Rule 34, plaintiff cannot be heard to complain if the court treats this motion as one for discovery and inspection pursuant to the latter rule and orders that copies of the documents be produced in answer to the interrogatories. Cf. Kennedy v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line, D.C., 7 F.R.D. 78.

The other objections to the interrogatories are also-overruled.

Settle order on notice, plaintiff to have fifty days from the entry of the order in which to answer said interrogatories.

1

 Cf. De Bruce v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C., 6 F.R.D. 403; Terrell v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, D.C., 5 F.R.D. 146; Doman v. Isthmian Steamship Co., D.C., 6 F.R.D. 609; Hayman v. Pullman Co., D.C., 8 F.R.D. 238; Simonin’s Sons v. American Can Co., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 134; Love v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., D.C., 8 F.R.D. 583 — all declaring interrogatories calling for the production of documents proper — with Dellameo v. Great Lakes Steamship Co., D.C., 9 F.R.D. 30; Castro v. A. H. Bull & Co., D.C., 9 F.R.D. 84; Bruen v. Huff, D.C., 8 F.R.D. 322; Walling v. Parry, D.C., 6 F.R.D. 554. The decision in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451, seems to have made the problem more perplexing. Cf. De Bruce v. Pennsylvania R. Co., supra, with Castro v. A. H. Bull & Co., supra.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 662 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 662

  Urging the release of information regarding the September 11, 2001, 
               terrorist attacks upon the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 29, 2019

 Ms. Gabbard submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Urging the release of information regarding the September 11, 2001, 
               terrorist attacks upon the United States.

Whereas tens of thousands of pages of documents relating to the terrorist 
        attacks of September 11, 2001, remain classified by the Federal 
        Government;
Whereas the contents of these documents are necessary for a full public 
        understanding of the events and circumstances surrounding the September 
        11, 2001, attacks upon the United States;
Whereas the decision to maintain the classified status of many of these 
        documents prevents the people of the United States from having access to 
        information about the attacks, including the involvement of certain 
        foreign governments; and
Whereas the people of the United States and the families of the victims of the 
        September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks deserve full and public disclosure 
        of the events surrounding the attack: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) documents related to the events of September 11, 2001, 
        should be declassified to the greatest extent possible; and
            (2) the survivors, the families of the victims, and the 
        people of the United States deserve answers about the events 
        and circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001, attacks 
        upon the United States.
                                 <all>
```
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-15-00191-CV 

MICHAEL A. ZANCHI, 341 BENNETT, LP, 

AND SABAZIA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, APPELLANTS 

 

V. 

 

BANK OF THE WEST, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 72nd District Court 

Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2014-510,956, Honorable Ruben Gonzales Reyes, Presiding 

 

July 16, 2015 

 

ORDER ON NOTICE OF BANKRUPTCY 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant 341 Bennett, LP has filed a notice of bankruptcy. See Tex. R. App. P. 

8.1. The notice states the case in bankruptcy was filed July 6, 2015, in the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division. It bears case 

number 15-41223.

We therefore abate this appeal until a party files a motion to reinstate or a motion 

to sever. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2, 8.3. The parties shall promptly inform the Court of 
2

the resolution of the bankruptcy case or some other event authorizing reinstatement of 

the appeal.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF WILLIAM T. MCKEE PURSUANT TO
EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, William T. McKee, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Barr
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;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 annual
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)
    
    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; andc)
    
    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 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; andb)
    
    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: August 23, 2004 /s/ William T. McKeeWilliam T. McKeeChief Financial Officer
 EX-4
#### INNOVAIR AVIATION, LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 96-408C.

United States Court of Federal Claims.

Jan. 30, 2002.

Ty Cobb, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.

Sheryl L. Floyd, Commercial Litigation Branch, with whom were David M. Cohen, Director, and Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant.

*ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE*

SMITH, Senior Judge.

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs on whether the stay in this case should be lifted, the Court lifts the stay in this case. In the interests of fairness and out of an abundance of caution, the Court directs plaintiff to show cause by March 29, 2002, why this case should not be dismissed in light of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in *Vereda, LTDA v. United States,*271 F.3d 1367 (Fed.Cir.2001).

The Court has carefully reviewed the Court of Appeals’ *Vereda*opinion and is fairly well convinced it must dismiss this ease. Congress created a comprehensive administrative and judicial review of government forfeitures under 21 U.S.C. § 881 and 18 U.S.C. § 981. In *Vereda,*the Federal Circuit made it clear that “[t]his statutory scheme evinces Congress’ intent to preempt any Tucker Act jurisdiction over a money claim that challenges the propriety of an *in rem*administrative forfeiture of property seized ...” *Vereda,*271 F.3d at 1375. While the Plaintiff does not challenge the propriety of the administrative forfeiture, it instead challenges the award it received for the property taken. However, the Federal Circuit also made it clear in *Vereda*that this Court cannot “entertain a taking claim that requires the court to ‘scrutinize the actions of another tribunal.’ ” *Id. (quoting Allustiarte v. United States,*256 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed.Cir.2001)). While the Plaintiff here does not ask this Court to overturn the forfeiture proceedings of the District Court for the District of Arizona, it is asking the Court to find that the district court reached a wrong decision as to the value of the Technology Licensing Agreement that the government took from Innovair. This the Court cannot do, nor can it review the forfeiture decision of the district court. However, the Court will allow the plaintiff to show why this reasoning is not correct. Plaintiffs brief shall not exceed 20 pages.

The defendant shall have until April 26, 2002, to respond to plaintiffs brief if it so chooses.

It is so ORDERED.
**Exhibit 31(a)**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, J. TimothyBryan, certify that:

1.                I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ICO Global Communications(Holdings) Limited;

2.                Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)                designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)               evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)                disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

a)                all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)               anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

| Date: November 14, 2006 |     | /s/ J. TIMOTHY BRYAN      |
|------------------------------|----------|---------------------------|
|                         |     | J. Timothy Bryan          |
|                         | * * | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
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 on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) of Sterling Banks, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, we, Robert H King, President and Chief Executive Officer, and R. Scott
Horner, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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/ Robert H. King
/s/ R. Scott HornerRobert H. King
R. Scott HornerPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer





Date: August 19, 2009
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Kevin Hogge, Chief Financial Officer of CRC Health Corporation (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 16, 2010                                         
|                                                              
|/s/    KEVIN
HOGGE                                            
|Kevin Hogge                                                   
|Chief Financial Officer                                       
|(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CRC Health Corporation and will be retained
by CRC Health Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Wei Xu, Appellant, v Fangruo Chen, Respondent.

Submitted December 10, 2012;

decided January 15, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.