alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 29, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 29549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2634]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 3, 2007, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Semiconductor Test Consortium, 
Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its 
membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Michael 
Chiu (individual member), Somerville, MA; Octavian Scientific, 
Portland, Oregon; Wright Williams & Kelly, Inc., Pleasanton, CA; and 
Zhou Feng (individual member), Hougang, SINGAPORE have been added as 
parties to this venture. Also, John Cosley (individual member), EL 
Dorado Hills, CA has withdrawn as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc., 
intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes 
in membership.
    On May 27, 2003, Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc. filed its 
original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 17, 2003 (68 35913).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 17, 
2007. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on March 15, 2007 (72 FR 12199).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 07-2634 Filed 5-25-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1765

REEDIE J. WARD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RAVENSWOOD VILLAGE NURSING HOME,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Charles H. Haden II, Chief

District Judge. (CA-97-342-6)

Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reedie J. Ward, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find that this appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court, Ward v. Ravenswood Village, No. CA-97-342-6 (S.D.W. Va.

May 15, 1997), and deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

DISMISSED
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 12
Federal Reserve Bank of: San Francisco

## Filings received during the week ending July 21, 2007

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
                    906 OF THE SARBANES - OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         Pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  the  undersigned  officer of Atrion
Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that
the Company's  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2006 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d),  as  applicable,  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934  and that the
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: November 6, 2006     /s/ Emile A. Battat
                            --------------------------------------------
                                     Emile A. Battat
                                     Chief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 and
not for any other purpose.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Joseph C. Cahill, Director and CFO of PowerCold 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:



1.  This Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2003 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



2.  The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: March 30, 2004



/s/ Joseph C. Cahill

Joseph C. Cahill

Director and CFO
# C_2012165EN.01001201.xml

| 9.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), lodged on 19 March 2012 — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Peter Brey

(Case C-140/12)

2012/C 165/19

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

Appellant on a point of law:

Respondent to the appeal on a point of law: Peter Brey

Respondent to the appeal on a point of law:

Question referred

Question referred

Is a compensatory supplement to be regarded as a ‘social assistance’ benefit within the terms contemplated in Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).

1

---
# C_2012025EN.01003402.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/34

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 8 November 2011 — Fédération Cynologique Internationale v Federación Canina Internacional de Perros de Pura Raza

(Case C-561/11)

(2012/C 25/65)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Alicante

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fédération Cynologique Internationale

Defendant: Federación Canina Internacional de Perros de Pura Raza

Question referred

In proceedings for infringement of the exclusive right conferred by a Community trade mark, does the right to prevent the use thereof by third parties in the course of trade provided for in Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark extend to any third party who uses a sign that involves a likelihood of confusion (because it is similar to the Community trade mark and the services or goods are similar) or, on the contrary, is the third party who uses that sign (capable of being confused) which has been registered in his name as a Community trade mark excluded until such time as that subsequent trade mark registration has been declared invalid?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

---
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 8
Federal Reserve Bank of: St. Louis

## Filings received during the week ending October 4, 2008

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location                      | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|------------------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|FARMERS & MERCHANTS BK, STUTTGART, ARKANSAS | 677644 | 06/16/2008 | 09/16/2008     | S         | Int Sm Bank

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 535.504 Application for waiver. ( a ) Upon a showing of good cause, the Commission may waive any part of the Information Form requirements in this subpart.
( b ) A request for such a waiver must be submitted and approved by the Commission in advance of the filing of the Information Form to which the requested waiver would apply. Requests for a waiver shall be submitted in writing to the Director, Bureau of Trade Analysis, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573-0001, and shall state: ( 1 ) The specific requirements from which relief is sought;
( 2 ) The special circumstances requiring the requested relief;
( 3 ) Relevant trade and industry data and information to substantiate and support the special circumstances requiring the requested relief;
( 4 ) Why granting the requested waiver will not substantially impair effective review of the agreement; and
( 5 ) A description of the full membership, geographic scope, and authority of the agreement or the agreement modification that is to be filed with the Commission.
( c ) The Commission may take into account the presence or absence of shipper complaints as well as the past compliance of the agreement parties with any reporting requirement under this part in considering an application for a waiver.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending April 5, 2008

|Filer                                               | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                           | End of Comment Period                                
|--------------------------------------------------- | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|ENB FINANCIAL CORP                                  | * 3A1         | ENB Financial Corporation, Ephrata, PA to become a bank holding company in connection with the reorganization of Ephrata National Bank, Ephrata, PA, merging with and into The Ephrata Interim National Bank, Ephrata PA. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:05/20/2008   
|Newspaper:                                          | Not available
|Federal Register:                                   | 05/20/2008   
|HIBSHMAN TRUST FOR EPHRATA NATIONAL BANK STOCK, THE | * 3A3         | The Hibshman Trust for Ephrata National Bank Stock, Ephrata, PA, to acquire 31.2% ENB Financial Corp., Ephrata, PA, and thereby indirectly acquire Ephrata National Bank, Ephrata, PA.                                    | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                                          | Not available
|Federal Register:                                   | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff/Respondent,

vs. Case No. 14-20756

STEPHEN OMAR DURRANT, HON. AVERN COHN

Defendant/Petitioner.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CORRECT THE RECORD (Doc. 154)

I.

This is a criminal case. Defendant/Petitioner Stephen Omar Durrant (Durrant)

plead guilty under a Rule 11 agreement to conspiracy to import controlled substances

and making a false statement during the acquisition of a firearm. The Court sentenced

Durrant to 60 months, within the guideline range in the Rule 11 agreement of 57 to 71

months but below the probation department’s calculated guidelines range of 70-87

months. Durrant appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed the

appeal, upholding the appellate waiver in the plea agreement and finding no miscarriage

of justice. United States v. Durrant, No. 16-1861 (6th Cir. Apr. 13, 2017). Durrant then

filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 raising several allegations of ineffective

assistance of counsel. (Doc. 138). The Court denied the motion and declined to issue

a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 149). Durrant has filed a notice of appeal from the

denial of his § 2255 motion. (Doc. 152).
Before the Court is Durrant’s motion to correct the record in which he contends

that a portion of the transcript of his plea hearing is not accurate. For the reasons that

follow, the motion is DENIED.

II.

A transcript of proceedings certified by the court reporter is “deemed prima facie

a correct statement of the testimony taken and proceedings had.” 28 U.S.C. § 753(b).

Courts have held that, since the transcript is only prima facie correct, it may be

corrected. See United States v. Carr, 496 F. Supp. 2d 837, 839 (S.D. Ohio 2005)

(citations omitted).

III.

Durrant says that a portion of the transcript of his plea hearing is missing or has

been omitted. The alleged missing portion relates to his ability for a safety value

reduction. Durrant in particular says that the government agreed during the plea

hearing that he was eligible for the safety valve. The certified transcript of the plea

hearing (Doc. 98) does not contain any such statement by the government. The

transcript does reflect that Durrant’s trial counsel indicated there is a “potential” for the

safety value to apply and the Court said trial counsel could argue for its application

later.1

 (Doc. 98; Tr. 11/23/15, Pg ID 430). The court reporter has compared the back

up audio and determined that the transcript accurately reflects the hearing. Under these

1

Trial counsel did argue for the safety valve by motion (Doc. 109) and at

sentencing (Doc. 135: Tr. 6/6/16, Pg ID 646). The government opposed the application. 

(Doc. 112). While the Court did not apply the safety valve, Durrant received a

sentenced below the government’s requested sentence of 71 months and below the

probation department’s guidelines range.

2
circumstances, there is no basis to correct the transcript.

SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: 8/31/2018

Detroit, Michigan 

3
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending September 6, 2008

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                             | End of Comment Period                                  
|----------------- | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|LUZERNE BANK      | Premises       | Luzerne Bank, Luzerne, PA, requests approval to increase its investment in bank premises by $700,000, which will exceed the 150% threshold for investment in bank premises. | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | Not applicable
|Federal Register: | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
#### § 32.65-15 Cofferdams—TB/ALL.

Tank vessels equipped to carry Grade A, B, C, or D liquids shall have their galleys, living quarters, general cargo spaces, boiler rooms, and enclosed spaces containing propelling machinery or other machinery where sources of vapor ignition are normally present, segregated from their cargo tanks by cofferdams or equivalent pumprooms, tanks, or air spaces.
§ 295.11 Applications. ( a ) *Action by MARAD* — ( 1 ) *Time Deadlines.* Not later than 30 days after the enactment of the Maritime Security Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-239, MARAD shall accept applications for Enrollment of vessels in the MSP Fleet. Within 90 days after receipt of a completed application, MARAD shall enter into a MSP Operating Agreement with the applicant or provide in writing the reason for denial of that application.
( 2 ) *Closure of Applications.* Applications for MSP Operating Agreements shall be made only at such time as, and in response to, publication of invitations to apply by MARAD in the Federal Register. After the Administrator has fully allocated authorized contracting authority through the award of the maximum number of vessels allowed under § 295.30(a), MARAD will not accept any applications for award of new Operating Agreements until additional contracting authority becomes available, or existing contracting authority reverts back to MARAD.
( 3 ) *Reflagging for Eligible vessels.* Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, an applicant may remove a vessel from U.S. registry without MARAD approval if an application for a MSP Operating Agreement has been filed for that vessel, the applicant is qualified, and it has been determined by MARAD to be eligible under MSA section 651(b)(1) under a priority for which sufficient funds are available and the Administrator has not awarded an Operating Agreement for the vessel within 90 days of that application.
( 4 ) *Reflagging ODS and MSC chartered vessels.* Vessels eligible under MSA section 651(b)(1) which are also subject to ODS contracts or on charter to MSC, and for which applications have been denied pursuant to § 295.11(a)(1) of this part, may be removed from U.S. registry only after those agreements have expired and only after the age requirement in section 9(e)(3) of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 App. U.S.C. 808) has been met.
( b ) *Action by the Applicant.* Applicants for MSP Payments shall submit information on the following (Note: MARAD will accept electronic options (such as facsimile and Internet) for transmission of required information to MARAD, if practicable): ( 1 ) *Intermodal network.* A statement describing its operating and transportation assets, including vessels, container stocks, trucks, railcars, terminal facilities, and systems used to link such assets together;
( 2 ) *Diversity of trading patterns.* A list of countries and trade routes serviced along with the types and volumes of cargo carried;
( 3 ) *Vessel construction date;*
( 4 ) *Vessel type and size;* and
( 5 ) *Military Utility.* An assessment of the value of the vessel to DOD sealift requirements.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 2133-0525) [62 FR 37737, July 15, 1997, as amended at 68 FR 62537, Nov. 5, 2003; 69 FR 61451, Oct. 19, 2004]
ACCEPTED

12-14-00282-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

8/3/2015 4:45:57 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 8/3/2015 4:45:57 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk