alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 67238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31999]



[[Page 67238]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP02-90-001]


El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

December 20, 2001.
    Take notice that on December 18, 2001, El Paso Natural Gas Company 
(EPNG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1-A, Substitute Ninth Revised Sheet No. 37, with an 
effective date of January 1, 2002.
    On November 30, 2001 in Docket No. RP02-90-000, EPNG submitted for 
filing thirteen revised tariff sheets to be effective on January 1, 
2002. EPNG states that is submitting Substitute Ninth Revised Sheet No. 
37 to reflect the same maximum monthly California reservation rate as 
shown on the Sheet No. 22 submitted in the original filing on November 
30.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the 
Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may 
also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``RIMS'' 
link, select ``Docket#'' and follow the instructions (call 202-208-2222 
for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-31999 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Comverse Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2010,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joel Legon, as Senior Vice President and Interim 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 to my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Joel E. LegonJoel E. LegonSenior Vice President and InterimChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


January 25, 2011

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall
not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                  5

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                         1,663,700
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 11,194,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                     365,100
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              19,209,700
<PP&E>                                        10,855,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                 9,344,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                25,515,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         10,371,000
<BONDS>                                                0
<COMMON>                                          63,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                    11,407,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  25,515,700
<SALES>                                       35,195,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              60,867,600
<CGS>                                         25,672,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 34,560,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               257,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  377,600
<INCOME-TAX>                                     150,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              227,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     227,200
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.04


</TABLE>
#### In re: Artis T. PERKINS, Petitioner.

No. 08-1364.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 28, 2008.

Artis T. Perkins, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Artis T. Perkins petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find there has been no undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
103 A.3d 797

#### IN THE MATTER OF GEOFFREY L. STEIERT, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 029031980).

December 10, 2014.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 14-008, concluding that GEOFFREY L. STEIERT of YOORHEES, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1980, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months for violating *RPC*8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and *RPC*8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further determined that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent should be required to submit proof of fitness to practice law;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that GEOFFREY L. STEIERT is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, effective immediately, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent shall submit to the Office of Attorney Ethics proof of his fitness to practice law as attested to by a mental health professional approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics; and it is further

*104ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that pursuant to *Rule*l:20-20(c), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of *Rule*l:20-20(b)(15) may (1) preclude the Disciplinary Review Board from considering respondent’s petition for reinstatement for a period of up to six months *from*the date respondent files proof of compliance; (2) be found to constitute a violation of RPC 8.1(b) and RPC 8.4(c); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to *Rule*1:10-2; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
# WORK ZONE SAFETY PRESS RELEASE: FLORIDA**

**FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: [Date]**

**CONTACT: [Name, Phone Number, E-Mail]**

**[Organization] Supports the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Work Zone Safety Outreach Campaign in Florida**

**[City, State]** – **[Organization]** announced today it is joining efforts to help reduce large truck crashes in works zones by supporting a state-wide work zone safety outreach campaign led by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). **[Organization]** calls on all drivers to “share work zones safely” by staying alert, obeying traffic signs and allowing all vehicles extra space while driving through Florida’s active work zones.

Throughout the campaign, FMCSA will amplify safety messages through outlets such as billboards and audio ads, reaching commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers traveling through work zones, including:

· I-75 and US 301 Interchange

· US 41 from Winkler Ave. to SR 82

· I-295 North Interchange (specifically on I-95)

· I-295 and US 17

· SR 390, Bay County

· US 98, Santa Rosa County

· I-4 and Daryl Carter Parkway Interchange

· U.S. 441 from Lake Ella Road to Avenida Central

· Florida’s Turnpike MP 27 – 39, Miami-Dade County

· Florida’s Turnpike MP 272-289, Osceola/Lake Counties

· I-275 north of I-4 to north Hillsborough Avenue, Hillsborough County

· I-75 Interchange at CR 672 (Big Bend Road), Hillsborough County

· I-75 Interchange from SR 574 (MLK) to I-4, Hillsborough County 

“We are pleased to be a part of an effort to remind not only CMV drivers, but all those on Florida’s roadways to slow down and pay attention when driving through work zones,” said **[spokesperson].** “There is a clear need to raise awareness on work zone safety. We’re proud of the Sunshine State for many reasons– but we still need everyone to do their part to prevent roadway crashes.” 

Florida is a highly transient state, known for its seaport and logistics infrastructure, and is also a world-renowned tourist destination. The state invested $4 billion annually toward infrastructure, exposing travelers to work zones on major interstates – where 47% of fatal work zone crashes involving CMVs occurred (FDOT). This, along with other strong statistics demonstrate the importance of the Work Zone Safety Outreach Campaign in Florida, for the collective effort to reduce work zone crashes and save lives. 

For more information on work zone safety, visit the campaign website.

**###**

[INSERT BOILERPLATE]

# image1.png
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1678

MARTIN BOADU,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A94-137-636)

Submitted: February 14, 2008 Decided: April 2, 2008

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jaime Winthuysen Aparisi, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner.

Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, David V.

Bernal, Assistant Director, Lauren E. Fascett, Office of

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Martin Boadu, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“Board”) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We

have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the

Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Boadu’s motion. See

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2007). Accordingly, we deny the petition

for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In Re: Boadu,

No. A94-137-636 (B.I.A. June 19, 2007). 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.

PETITION DENIED