alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 108 (Monday, June 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14108]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of 
June 5, 2000.
    A closed meeting will be held on Thursday, June 8, 2000 at 11 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (8), (9)(A) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(4), 
(8), (9)(A) and (10), permit consideration for the scheduled matters at 
the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled Thursday, June 
8, 2000 will be:

Institution of injunctive actions; and
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact: The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

    Dated: June 1, 2000.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-14108 Filed 6-1-00; 11:39 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
#### JACOB VOORHIS, Jr., Respondent, *v.*THE MAYOR, Etc., OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant,- entered on the report of a referee, for services in regulating and grading First avenue.

The court was of opinion that that portion of the work done, for which this recovery was had, was not included in the work which, under the terms of the contract entered into between the parties, the plaintiff, was to perform, the excavation not being within the lines of the street; and that if it was incidental to such work pro-*77Tided for in the contract, that instrument expressly provided that it was to be done without additional compensation.

*Richard*O’Gorman, for the appellant.

*John E.*Develin, for the respondent.

Opinion by

Daniels, J.

Davis, P. J., and Brady, J., concurred.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.
#### § 80.1705 Alaska.

The 72 COLREGS shall apply on all the sounds, bays, harbors, and inlets of Alaska.

[CGD 79-036, 44 FR 22458, Apr. 16, 1979. Redesignated by CGD 81-017, 46 FR 28154, May 26, 1981]
§ 334.530 Canaveral Harbor adjacent to the Navy pier at Port Canaveral, Fla.; restricted area. ( a ) *The area.* The waters of Canaveral Harbor within a line circumscribing the water approaches to the Navy pier along the northeasterly edge of the Canaveral Harbor turning basin at a distance of 200 feet from all portions of the pier including the dolphins 200 feet off the northwest end and 75 feet off the southeast end of the pier.
( b ) *The regulations.* ( 1 ) All unauthorized vessels and personnel are prohibited from the area during specified periods.
( 2 ) The area will be closed when a red square flag (bravo), and depending on the status of the hazardous operation, either an amber or red beacon, steady burning or rotating, day or night, when displayed from any of the three berths along the wharf.
( 3 ) Lighted signs indicating the restricted area will be placed on the pier and adjacent thereto.
( 4 ) The regulations in this section shall be enforced by the Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Ordnance Test Unit, AFMTC, Patrick Air Force Base, Florida.
[25 FR 12244, Nov. 30, 1960. Redesignated at 50 FR 42696, Oct. 22, 1985, as amended at 61 FR 34733, July 3, 1996]
### Executiv e Orde r 1286 6 an d Congressiona l Review Requirement s Rulemakin g Documen t

Title : rwtrJj^e- ^ /^ ^ /rg^^A^fy/^g ^ Mdj/4^ 0 yj^uff/ihh / A/ ^ /4^r»- ^

Withrespec t

t o th e attache drulemakin g document(s) : 1 . E.0.12866 : Th e requirement s o f sectio n 6(a)(3XE ) o f

E.O . 1286 6 hav e bee n me t in accordanc e withth e followin g [initia l appropriat e line] :

Th e rulemakin g document(s ) wa s no t reviewe db y th e Offic e o f hiformatio n an d Regulatory Affair s (OIRA) . N o substantiv e change s wer e mad e t o th e document(s ) after it wa s submitte dt o OIRA . Th e require dinformatio n i s attached . 2 . Congressiona l Review : Th e requirement s o f th e Smal l Busines s Regulatory Enforcemen t Fairnes s Ac t fo r th e submissio n o f

final rule s t o Congres s an dGA O ( § 801 ) hav e bee n me t in accordanc e withth e followin g [initia l appropriat e line] :

Thi s documen t

i s no t afinal rule . Thi s documen t

i s no t arul e unde r

( § 804) . Th e documen t

ha s bee n submitte dt o C-5 0 for transmissio n t o Congres s an dGAO . Signatur e 

## ^^ic t 

## H Kr/

L Nam e 

### //fi^c.f-i yuUa^' \

Or-/jr£ , o f ^,-i/^(i ^

jJLUff//e9^fifJ, . Tllle/Offic e " ^ ^ f

—r -fe t Dat e
#### § 3000.101 Purpose.

This part is published in compliance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and constitutes a general description of the Postal Regulatory Commission.

[78 FR 27045, May 9, 2013. Redesignated at 85 FR 9615, Feb. 19, 2020]
EXHIBIT 32.2
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 of American Express Credit Corporation
(the Company) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
David L. Yowan, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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/ David L.
  Yowan
|                    
|Name:                | David L.
  Yowan         
|Title:               | Chief
  Financial Officer
|Date:                | November 13, 2006        

The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not
being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This
certification shall 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 this Exhibit 32.2 is expressly and specifically incorporated
by reference in any such filing.

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### § 230.42 Disposition of property declared abandoned where title vests in the government.

Property declared abandoned, including cash and proceeds from the sale of property subject to this part, may be shared with federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies. Abandoned property may also be destroyed, sold, or placed into official use. However, before abandoned property can be shared with another agency, sold, or placed into official use, the Executive Special Agent in Charge must confer with the Office of Inspector General, Office of General Counsel. Abandoned property that is not shared with other agencies shall be converted into a monetary instrument and deposited into the Postal Service Fund established by 39 U.S.C. 2003. The Executive Special Agent in Charge of Headquarters Operations, or a designee, in consultation with the Office of General Counsel, shall determine which accounts within the Postal Service Fund will receive the proceeds of abandoned property.
NO. 07-07-0097-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	DECEMBER 13, 2007

			______________________________

	RICARDO FLORES MENDOZA, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 48,446-E; HONORABLE RICHARD DANBOLD, JUDGE

	_______________________________

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant, Ricardo Flores Mendoza, was convicted of possession of a deadly weapon within a penal institution and sentenced to seven years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  The sentence was ordered to begin upon the completion of the sentence the appellant was serving at the time of the instant offense.  We affirm.

	Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967).  In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Id. at 744- 45.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court’s judgment.  Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response.  Appellant has not filed a response.

	By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous.  We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

	Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

							Mackey K. Hancock

							          Justice

Do not publish.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Abeautiful mystery.**
 
2017
 
SuDoc Number:I 29.2:P 44/6/
Item Number:0648 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000992386
 
June 12, 2018
§ 3010.127 Service. ( a ) Material filed by a person participating in a docket shall be deemed served on all other persons (except those served by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section) who are participating in the docket as of the date the material, or notice of the material's filing is posted by the Secretary on the Commission's website.
( b ) The Secretary shall provide service by First-Class Mail, which is deemed complete upon mailing, to the following persons upon a demonstration of the inability to effectively utilize the Filing Online system (until alternative arrangements are established): ( 1 ) Petitioners in dockets appealing Postal Service determinations to close or consolidate post offices conducted pursuant to part 3021 of this chapter;
( 2 ) Parties that have intervened in proceedings docketed for a hearing on the record; and
( 3 ) Where necessary for fairness and protection of due process, an active participant in a proceeding affecting the substantial rights of that participant.
( c ) The Secretary shall maintain a current service list in each proceeding docketed for a hearing on the record which shall include the parties that have intervened in that proceeding and up to two individuals designated for physical service of documents, if necessary, by each party. The service list for each current proceeding will be available on the Commission's website at *http://www.prc.gov .* Each party who has internet access shall be responsible for ensuring that its listing on the Commission's website is accurate and should promptly notify the Secretary of any errors. The Secretary or the Secretary's designee shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of listings of any parties who lack internet access.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40022

Summary Calendar

 

ROBERT E. PINE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MARTY KEVIN BRUMFIELD ET AL.,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-95-CV-42

- - - - - - - - - -

August 26, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert E. Pine appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

civil rights suit for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed

de novo the district court’s judgment, the record, and the briefs

and find no error in the district court’s holding that Judge

David Christian and Assistant District Attorneys Arnold Davy

Davis and Brian K. Bricker are absolutely immune from suit.
No. 96-40022

- 2 -

** Rooker v. Fidelity Trust, 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Dist. of

Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

Pine’s due process and Fourth Amendment challenges are

“inextricably intertwined” with his state court conviction for

cruelty to animals and the civil forfieture of a colt. See Pine

(Approximately 15 Horses and 2 Head of Cattle) v. State, 921

S.W.2d 866 (Tex. Ct. App. 1996), writ applied for (Jul. 18,

1996). Pine is essentially calling upon the federal courts to

review the validity of the state-court decisions regarding his

conviction and the forfeiture. Under the Rooker-Feldman**

doctrine, "federal district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain

collateral attacks on state court judgments." Liedtke v. State

Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.

Ct. 271 (1994). “When issues raised in a federal court are

`inextricably intertwined’ with a state judgment and the court is

`in essence being called upon to review the state-court

decision,’ the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” Davis

v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir. 1995)(citations omitted). 

“The casting of a complaint in the form of a civil rights action

cannot circumvent this rule.” Liedtke, 18 F.3d at 317.

We find no reversible error in the dismissal of the

defendants and affirm the judgment.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4914 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4914

     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
                 hydroelectric project in Pennsylvania.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 20, 2000

  Mr. Klink introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
                 hydroelectric project in Pennsylvania.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
              PROJECT.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified in 
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 
otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project 
numbered 4474, the Allegheny River Lock and Dam #3 Project, the 
Commission may, at the request of the licensee for the project and 
after reasonable notice, in accordance with the good faith, due 
diligence, and public interest requirements of that section and the 
Commission's procedures under that section, extend the time period 
during which the licensee is required to commence the construction of 
the project for 3 consecutive 2-year periods.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall take effect on the date 
of the expiration of the extension issued by the Commission prior to 
the date of the enactment of this Act under section 13 of the Federal 
Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806).
    (c) Reinstatement of Expired License.--If the period required for 
commencement of construction of the project described in subsection (a) 
has expired prior to the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Commission shall reinstate the license effective as of the date of its 
expiration and the first extension authorized under subsection (a) 
shall take effect on the date of such expiration.
                                 <all>
```
§ 334.293 Elizabeth River, Craney Island Refueling Pier Restricted Area, Portsmouth VA; naval restricted area. ( a ) *The area.* ( 1 ) The waters within an area beginning at a point on the shore at latitude 36°53′17.4′′ N, longitude 76°20′21′′ W; thence easterly to latitude 36°53′16.8′′ N, longitude 76°20′14.4′′ W: thence southwesterly to latitude 36°53′00′′ N, longitude 76°20′18′′ W; thence southeasterly to latitude 36°52′55.2′′ N, longitude 76°20′16.5′′ W: thence southwesterly to latitude 36°52′52.2′′ N, longitude 76°20′18′′ W; thence southwesterly to latitude 36°52′49.8′′ N, longitude 76°20′25.8′′ W: thence northwesterly to latitude 36°52′58.2′′ N, longitude 76°20′33.6′′ W; thence northeasterly to a point on the shore at latitude 36°53′00′′ N, longitude 76°20′30′′ W; thence northerly along the shoreline to the point of beginning.
( b ) *The regulation.* No vessel or persons may enter the restricted area unless specific authorization is granted by the Commander, Navy Region, Mid-Atlantic and/or other persons or agencies as he/she may designate.
( c ) *Enforcement.* The regulation in this section, promulgated by the Corps of Engineers, shall be enforced by the Commander, Navy Region, Mid-Atlantic, and such agencies or persons as he/she may designate.
[67 FR 6654, Feb. 13, 2002]
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NOS. 02 - 09 - 00 397 - CR 02 - 09 - 00 398 - CR ADAM LEE GROS APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT CO URT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM O PINION 1

---------- Appellant Adam Lee Gros appeals the trial court’s judgments, which revoked his deferred adjudication community supervision in these assault

- family violence cases, adjudicated him guilty, and assessed two years’ confinement each, to be served concurrently. Gros’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.presenting a professional evaluatio n of the record demonstrating why there are

no arguable grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We gave Gros an opportunity to file a pro se brief, and he has done so. The State declined to file a response. Once an appellant’s court

- ap pointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 922

– 23 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record , counsel’s brief, and Gros’s pro se brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

PER CURIAM
PANEL: MCCOY, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex . R. App

. P. 47.2(b )
DELIVERED: March 24, 2011