alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 27 (Thursday, February 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 9563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3262]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER99-3144-003, ER99-3144-004 and ER99-3144-005; EC99-80-
003, EC99-80-004, and EC99-80-005, ER00-2869-000 and EC00-103-000 (not 
consolidated)]


Request for Information Regarding Grandfathered Contracts Prior 
to Convening Session

February 2, 2001.
    In the matter of: American Electric Power Service Corporation on 
behalf of: Appalachian Power Company, Columbus Southern Power 
Company, Indiana Michigan Power Company, Kentucky Power Company, 
Kingsport Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Wheeling Power Company, 
The Detroit Edison Company, First Energy Corporation on behalf of: 
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Ohio Edison Company, 
Pennsylvania Power Company, The Toledo Edison Company, Virginia 
Electric and Power Company, Consumers Energy Company.

    Pursuant to the order in Alliance Companies, et al., 91 FERC para. 
61,070 (2001), the Commission directed parties with grandfathered 
contracts whose terms extend beyond the transition period to negotiate 
amendments or termination of such contracts. To assist the parties, the 
Commission directed the Director of the Commission's Dispute Resolution 
Service (DRS) to convene a meeting of the parties to explore the use of 
an ADR process to foster negotiation and agreement.
    All parties with grandfathered agreements that are the subject of 
the Commission's order, as described above, are requested to contact 
the DRS. To contact the DRS, please send an e-mail including the name, 
telephone number and e-mail address of the party contact as well as the 
title and description of the grandfathered contract(s) involved to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#11507c683f537d70647c707f51777463723f7774753f6462"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cd8ca0b4e38fa1acb8a0aca38daba8bfaee3aba8a9e3b8be">[email protected]</span></a> no later than February 16, 2001. The DRS can 
also be reached at (202) 208-2143.
    The DRS is tentatively planning to hold the convening session 
during the week of March 4, 2001. However, the DRS will be in contact 
with the parties who respond to this request to select an appropriate 
date and location for the meeting. A notice of the date and location of 
the convening session will be issued at a later date.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-3262 Filed 2-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 99.03

                                                             Company's Form 10-Q
                                                             September 30, 1994

                                                             Page 16

          In June 1994, several actions relating to trading practices on the
National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotation system were filed
against a number of major broker/dealers, including SBI, in various federal
courts. In October 1994, the actions were consolidated in the Federal District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs purport to represent
a class of purchasers of stock trading in that system over the last four years.
The claims generally allege price-fixing violations under the federal antitrust
laws and violations of the federal securities laws relating to the use of
even-eighth price quotes instead of odd-eighth bid and asked quotes. A
consolidated amended complaint is expected to be filed in mid-December 1994. The
Company is reviewing these allegations, believes that it has meritorious
defenses and intends to vigorously defend against these claims.
<PAGE>

                                                             Company's Form 10-K
                                                             December 31, 1995

                                                             Page 10

          For information concerning actions filed against a number of
broker-dealers, including SBI, relating to trading practices on the National
Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotation system, see the
description that appears in the third paragraph of page 16 of the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form l0-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1994, which
description is incorporated by reference herein. A copy of the pertinent
paragraph is included as an exhibit to this Form 10-K. A consolidated amended
complaint was filed in December 1994. In August l995, the defendants' motion to
dismiss was granted with leave to replead, and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     EXHIBIT 11

                   NANOPIERCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                          COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                                     (Unaudited)

                                 Three Months Ended           Six Months Ended
                                     December 31,                December 31,
                             --------------------------  --------------------------
                                 2003          2002          2003          2002
                             ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
<S>                          <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
Net loss                     $  (302,032)     (684,998)     (756,898)   (1,874,230)
                             ============  ============  ============  ============

Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding   66,023,929    60,593,585    65,912,263    59,117,467

Common equivalent shares
  representing shares
  issuable upon exercise of
  outstanding options and
  warrants                             -             -             -             -
                             ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
                              66,023,929    60,593,585    65,912,263    57,643,545
                             ============  ============  ============  ============

Net loss per share,
  basic and diluted          $         *         (0.01)        (0.01)         (.03)
                             ============  ============  ============  ============
</TABLE>

*  Less than ($0.01) per share.

Stock  options,  and  warrants  are not considered in the calculations for those
periods  with  net  losses  as  the  impact  of  the  potential  common  shares
(approximately 14,695,210 at December 31, 2003 and 14,003,852 shares at December
31,  2002)  would  be  to  decrease  net  loss  per  share.


<PAGE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1944

SALIH M. ZAMZAM; MARIAM ZAMZAM; SALIH M. ZAMZAM, M.D., INCORPORATED, Petitioners - Appellants, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. Nos. 97-2984, 97-3004) Submitted: December 21, 2001 Decided: January 14, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Salih M. Zamzam, Mariam Zamzam, Appellants Pro Se. Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Joel L. McElvain, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Salih M. Zamzam, Mariam Zamzam, and Salih M. Zamzam M.D., Inc., appeal from the tax court’s order determining deficiencies and penalties with respect to their 1990 through 1994 federal income tax liabilities. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue has moved to dismiss the appeal by Salih M. Zamzam M.D., Inc., because the corporation is not represented by counsel. Salih and Mariam Zamzam have moved for appointment of counsel for the corporation. We deny this motion. See Rowland v. California Men’s Colony , 506 U.S. 194, 197-98 (1993) (only natural person may be granted in forma pauperis status). A corporation cannot appear in federal court except through its attorney. Id. at 201-02. Accordingly, we grant the Commissioner’s motion and dismiss the corporation’s appeal. With respect to the Zamzams’ appeal, we have reviewed the record and the tax court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. Zamzam v. Comm’r. , Nos. 97-2984, 97-3004 (U.S. Tax Ct. Dec. 7, 2000 & May 18, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

                         ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDEPENDENT
                         CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                 REGARDING INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REVIEW REPORT


The Board of Directors
PLATINUM technology, inc.:


With respect to the registration statements on Form S-1 and Form S-8 of PLATINUM
technology, inc., we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report 
dated April 29, 1997 related to our review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not 
considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an 
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.


                                                   KPMG Peat Marwick LLP




Chicago, Illinois
April 29, 1997
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP96-312-039]

Take notice that on January 26, 2001, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee), tendered for filing a notice of a change in rates for the October 18, 2000 Negotiated Rate Agreement between Tennessee and Dynegy Energy Marketing and Trade (Dynegy). The notice substitutes a fixed rate in place of a Margin calculation for certain volumes for TGP Service Package No. 35092. The fixed prices listed in the notice are effective from February 1, 2001 through March 31, 2001.

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 on or before February 8, 2001. 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 in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests 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 at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-3256 Filed 2-7-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000828191
<NAME> 88B
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         153,405
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  148,381
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               301,786
<PP&E>                                       7,134,510
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,118,884
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,317,412
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,291
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,287,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,317,412
<SALES>                                        591,346
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               605,368
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  258,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                347,058
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            347,058
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   347,058
<EPS-BASIC>                                      38.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 10506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3818]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Arthritis and 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: April 16, 2001.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Double Tree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20853.
    Contact Person: Tracy A. Shahan, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Institutes of Health/NIAMS, Natcher Bldg., 
Room 5AS25H, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-4952.


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, 
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 8, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-3818 Filed 2-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         949,205
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    744,607
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,738,603
<PP&E>                                         17,850,868
<DEPRECIATION>                                 128,861
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 20,902,795
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,875,591
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          400
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       14,288
<OTHER-SE>                                     8,395,125
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   20,902,795
<SALES>                                        8,059,415
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               8,362,041
<CGS>                                          2,879,266
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  27,637,041
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             375,936
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (16,780,382)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (16,780,382)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.52)
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                              EXHIBIT 10.8


                     AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


     Amendment dated effective the 4th day of February, 1998, to an 
Employment Agreement dated April 13, 1992 (the "Employment Agreement") 
between Mid-America Realty Investments, Inc. (formerly Dial Reit, Inc.), a 
Maryland corporation ("MDI") and Jerome L. Heinrichs ("Executive").

     WHEREAS, MDI and Executive have entered into the Employment Agreement 
and wish to amend a provision of the Employment Agreement relating to the 
period during which certain lump-sum payments would be made to Executive 
following a change-of-control of MDI as defined in the Employment Agreement, 
and

     WHEREAS, the parties have agreed with respect to the terms of such 
change.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree that subparagraph (a) of paragraph 
SEVENTH of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended so that the words 
"during the first seventy-two (72) months of Executive's employment 
hereunder" shall be changed to "during the first eighty-four (84) months of 
Executive's employment hereunder".

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and 
year first above written.

                                     MID-AMERICA REALTY INVESTMENTS, INC.



                                     By:  _____________________________ 
                                          Dennis G. Gethmann, President



                                          ______________________________
                                          Jerome L. Heinrichs










                                    94
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 9687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3452]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

DATE AND TIME: Friday, February 16, 2001, 7:30 a.m.

PLACE: Wynhdham Miami Biscayne Bay Hotel, 1601 Biscayne Boulevard, 
Bahama Room, Miami, FL 33132.

STATUS:   

Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda
II. Approval of Minutes of January 12, 2001 Meeting
III. Announcements
IV. Staff Director's Report
V. Final Report Card: The Civil Rights Performance of the Clinton 
Administration
VI. State Advisory Committee Report
    <bullet> Reconciliation at a Crossroads: The Implications of Rice 
v. Cayetano on Programs for Native Hawaiians
VII. Future Agenda Items

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Les Jin, Office of the Staff 
Director, (202) 376-7700.
    9:00 a.m. Hearing to Begin

Edward A. Hailes, Jr.,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 01-3452 Filed 2-6-01; 4:25 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-M
BLD-100 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-4648

___________

IN RE: CHARLES E. JACKSON,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 2-10-cr-00388-001)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

January 26, 2012

Before: SCIRICA, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Filed: February 9, 2012 )

_________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_________

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, a criminal defendant proceeding pro se in the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, requests that we compel the District Court 

to rule on his pretrial motions to dismiss the indictment. We decline to do so. 

“The remedy of mandamus is properly invoked only in extraordinary situations.” 

In re Complaint of Bankers Trust Co., 775 F.2d 545, 547 (3d Cir. 1985). A party seeking 

mandamus must show that he has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he 
2

desires” and that his right to the writ is “clear and indisputable.” Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. 

for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976) (citations omitted). Even with a successful 

showing, the decision to issue the writ rests on the Court’s exercise of its discretion. 

United States v. Ferri, 686 F.2d 147, 152 (3d Cir. 1982).

Our review of the District Court docket reveals that the petitioner, who sought 

several continuances and eventually decided to proceed pro se, filed an “Omnibus Pretrial 

Motion” in mid-November of 2011. See ECF No. 89. Since that time, he has filed 

numerous other pretrial motions, generating a steady flow of paper through December 

and into January—well past the December 28, 2011 filing date of his mandamus petition. 

See, e.g., “Motion for Employment Records of F.B.I. Agents and Memorandum of Law,” 

ECF No. 111 (filed Jan. 13, 2012). More than one document references the dismissal of 

the indictment, and all were filed rather recently. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 89, 92, 104. The 

record further demonstrates that the Government has responded to many of these 

motions. 

We see no indication that the District Court has “refused to act on a motion within

its jurisdiction.” Cofab, Inc. v. Phila. Joint Bd., Amalgamated Clothing & Textile 

Workers Union, 141 F.3d 105, 110 (3d Cir. 1998). No significant amount of time has 

elapsed that would suggest any abdication of jurisdictional responsibility. We are 

confident that the District Court will rule on outstanding motions in a timely manner.

Accordingly, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.