whether Rule 26(c) applies to permit additional time to file trial transcripts, we have decided similar cases under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e), upon which the pre-1996 version of Rule 26(c) was based. In Lauzon v. Strachan Shipping Co., 782 F.2d 1217, 1220 (5th Cir.1985), we held that: [t]he fact that notice is to be served by mail is not dispositive. The correct inquiry is whether the required actions must be performed within a prescribed period' of filing or of service. If the act is to be taken after filing, the time for action begins to run from that date. If the act is to be taken after service, the three day extension of either Fed. R.App. P. 26(c) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e) applies. See also Speck v. United States, No. 93-5144, 1994 WL 745411, at *1 (Fed.Cir. Apr. 20, 1994) (order) (<HOLDING>).. In this case, the Court Clerk’s letter
holding that when a contract is signed by one party but not the other the manifestation of consent by the nonsigning party is sufficient to bind that party holding a motion is untimely if not filed after the party has knowledge to support disqualification and after the party suffers an adverse ruling holding that a court of appeals may only do so when an appeal has been raised by an existing party to the case holding that rule 26c applies only wherea party is required or permitted to do something after being served with a paper by a party not to a time period prescribed by court order holding that a gratuitous and unsolicited statement of policy or of intention which receives the concurrence of the party to whom it is addressed does not constitute a contract and a mere expression of intention or general willingness to do something on the happening of a particular event or in return for something to be received does not amount to an offer