alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 212 (Friday, November 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 75591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24349]


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

OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS


OGE Senior Executive Service; Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Office of Government Ethics (OGE).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the membership of the OGE Senior 
Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board.

DATES: Applicable date: November 3, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney K. Williams, Human Resources 
Attorney-Advisor, Office of Government Ethics, Suite 500, 1201 New York 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005-3917; Telephone: 202-482-9209.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5 U.S.C. 4314(c) requires each agency to 
establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of 
Personnel Management at 5 CFR part 430, subpart C and Sec.  430.310 
thereof in particular, one or more Senior Executive Service performance 
review boards. As a small executive branch agency, OGE has just one 
board. In order to ensure an adequate level of staffing and to avoid a 
constant series of recusals, the designated members of OGE's SES 
Performance Review Board are being drawn, as in the past, in large 
measure from the ranks of other executive branch agencies. The board 
shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of each OGE senior 
executive's performance by his or her supervisor, along with any 
recommendations in each instance to the appointing authority relative 
to the performance of the senior executive. This notice updates the 
membership of OGE's SES Performance Review Board as it was most 
recently published at 88 FR 543134 (July 6, 2023).
    The SES Performance Review Board of the Office of Government Ethics 
is composed of the following officials: Elizabeth Fischmann, Designated 
Agency Ethics Official, National Credit Union Association; Sean Dent, 
Senior Deputy General Counsel, Federal Housing Finance Agency; and 
Peter J. Constantine, Associate Solicitor for Legal Counsel, Office of 
the Solicitor, Department of Labor.

    Approved: October 30, 2023.
Shelley K. Finlayson,
Acting Director, U.S. Office of Government Ethics.
[FR Doc. 2023-24349 Filed 11-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6345-03-P
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DONALD MICHAEL HILL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-10383

D.C. No. 2:06-cr-00580-MHM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Mary H. Murguia, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. 

Donald Michael Hill appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month

sentence for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Pursuant to Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Hill’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are

no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We

FILED

MAR 14 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-10383

have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. We

dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d

1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
No. 68644.

protests 63/19454 and 63/19455 (Philadelphia).

#### P. L. Thomas & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of coffee stirrers similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 67164, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the First Division,

February 11, 1949

No. 52875.

#### Milton Snedeker Corporation *v.*United States,

petitions 6633-R and 6680-R (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

At the trial petitioner’s witness testified that prior to entry the petitioner had communicated with the Canadian manufacturer for information concerning prevailing prices in the foreign market. The reply letter (exhibit 1) received from the exporter was submitted to the customs examiner who advised entry on the basis of the invoice values, the prices paid for the merchandise, which values petitioner used in making the entries. Later, after the entries had come under the observation of the appraiser, the entered values were rejected by customs officials. Ultimately, appeals for reappraisement were decided on agreed sets of facts establishing higher values to be the proper dutiable values. (Reap. Decs. 7183 and 7203.) From the record presented the court was satisfied that the entry of the merchandise under consideration was without intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petitions were therefore granted.
No. 64718.

#### Honolulu Sales, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 312552-K, etc. (Honolulu).

*323Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that fbe merchandise consists of metal stoves similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63217, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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

I, Donna M. Coughey, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Chester Valley
Bancorp Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that to my knowledge the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that as of the date of this statement, the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and result of operations of the Company.

The purpose of this statement is to solely comply with Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, as adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


Date:  May 10, 2005                         /s/ Donna M. Coughey
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Donna M. Coughey
                                            President & Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                       CONSENT OF PEDERSEN & HOUPT, P.C.
 
   
     Pedersen & Houpt, P.C. hereby consents to all references made to it in
Amendment No. 3 to this Registration Statement on Form S-1 of SpinCycle, Inc.,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 1998.
    
 
                                          /s/   PEDERSEN & HOUPT, P.C.
 
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                  Pedersen & Houpt, P.C.
 
Chicago, Illinois
   
October 29, 1998
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
New Mexico and Arizona Land Company:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement 
(No. 333-44017) on Form S-8 of New Mexico and Arizona Land Company of 
our report dated February 20, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheet 
of New Mexico and Arizona Land Company and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 
1997, and the related consolidated statements of income, cash flows, and 
shareholders' equity and related financial statement schedules for each of the 
years in the two-year period ended December 31, 1997, which appears in the 
December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of New Mexico and Arizona Land 
Company.





KPMG LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
April 13, 1999
*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral

argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAUL NARVIOS, ) No. 08-16249

)

Petitioner – Appellant, ) D.C. No. 5:02-CV-05378-RMW

)

v. ) MEMORANDUM*

)

A. A. LAMARQUE, Warden, )

)

Respondent – Appellee. )

 )

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Ronald M. Whyte, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 12, 2010**

San Francisco, California

Before: FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Paul Narvios appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas

corpus relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We affirm. 

The district court did not err when it determined that Narvios’ right to

FILED

AUG 06 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
1

See U.S. Const. amend. VI.

2

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75–76, 123 S.

Ct. 1166, 1174–75, 155 L. Ed. 2d 144 (2003); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,

405–08, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 1519–20, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000) .

3

Because the California court’s decision was final before Crawford v.

Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68–69, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1374, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004)

was decided, Roberts controls the Confrontation Clause analysis. See Whorton v.

Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 409, 127 S. Ct. 1173, 1177, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2007). 

4

We note that the state did exert reasonable efforts to make the victim

available. See California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 167 n.16, 90 S. Ct. 1930, 1939

n.16, 26 L. Ed. 2d 489 (1970); id. at 189 n.22, 90 S. Ct. at 1951 n.22 (Harlan, J.,

concurring); Christian, 41 F.3d at 467.

5

See Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112, 117–20, 127 S. Ct. 2321, 2325–27, 168 L.

(continued...)

2

confront the witness against him1

 was not violated and that Narvios did not meet

the requirements for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.2

 On the record before

them, the state courts could properly determine that his victim’s out of court

statement was admissible because the statement was reliable and she was not

available. See Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821–22, 110 S. Ct. 3139, 3150, 111

L. Ed. 2d 638 (1990); Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66, 100 S. Ct. 2531, 2539, 65

L. Ed. 2d 597 (1980);3

 Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 467–68 (9th Cir. 1994);

Barker v. Morris, 761 F.2d 1396, 1400 (9th Cir. 1985); In re Cindy L., 17 Cal. 4th

15, 28-30, 947 P.2d 1340, 1349–50, 69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 803, 812–13 (1997).4

Moreover, even if there had been error, Narvios has shown no prejudice;5

 his
5

(...continued)

Ed. 2d 16 (2007); Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S. Ct. 1710,

1722, 123 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1993).

3

confession, his testimony, and the corroborating evidence demonstrated that. 

AFFIRMED.
No. 50841.

#### Protests 936226-G, etc., of A. Newberg, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Schmidt*v. *United Slates*(9 Cust. Ct. 188, C. D. 690), the merchandise in question was held not subject to countervailing duty as claimed.
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 American Apparel Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on March 31, 2010 and Amendments No. 1, 2 and 3 as filed with the SEC on the date hereof (together, the Report), I, Adrian Kowalewski, Chief
Financial Officer of American Apparel, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the
period covered by the Report.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 29, 2010                                                                                               
|                                                                                                                   
|/s/    ADRIAN
KOWALEWSKI                                                                                           
|Adrian Kowalewski
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 13, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-12-00778-CV

NO. 14-12-00779-CV

IN THE MATTER OF D.L.W., a Juvenile

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 2012-01198J & 2012-01197J

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

These are attempted appeals from the juvenile court’s orders signed August 20, 

2012, waiving jurisdiction and transferring the cases to the criminal district court for 

prosecution of two charges of aggravated robbery. See Tex. Fam. Code § 54.02. While a 

defendant may appeal such an order, the appeal must be joined with the defendant’s 

appeal of any criminal court conviction or order of deferred adjudication. See Tex. Code 

Crim. Proc. art. 44.47(b); In re B.T., 323 S.W.3d 158, 162 (Tex. 2010) (granting 

mandamus relief to require transfer hearing be delayed until 17-year-old juvenile’s 
2

diagnostic study had been completed). Our records contain no judgments of conviction or 

orders of deferred adjudication. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction over these appeals.

On October 26, 2012, notification was transmitted to all parties of this court’s 

intention to dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction unless any party filed a 

response within ten days demonstrating our jurisdiction over the appeals. No response 

was filed.

We order the appeals dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Christopher, and Jamison.
Document

Exhibit 10.13


THIRD AMENDMENT TO GE GLOBAL EMPLOYEE SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Third Amendment to the GE Global Employee Services Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into on December 2, 2020 with an effective date of October 1, 2020, by and between General Electric Company, a New York corporation (“GE”) in its name and on its behalf and on behalf of its Affiliates, subsidiaries, partnerships and branches, and Baker Hughes Holdings LLC, formerly known as Baker Hughes, A GE company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Baker Hughes”) in its name and on its behalf and on behalf of its Affiliates, subsidiaries, partnerships, and branches, and amends the GE Global Employee Services Agreement, effective as of July 3, 2017, by and between GE and Baker Hughes and amended on May 24, 2018, and July 31, 2019 (the “GE Global Employee Services Agreement”). Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the GE Global Employee Services Agreement.
    WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the GE Global Employee Services Agreement, as set forth herein.
    NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1.Schedule 1.1 of the GE Global Employee Services Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety with Schedule A attached to this Amendment.
2.The provisions of Article II of the GE Global Employee Services Agreement are incorporated herein by reference, mutatis mutandis, to be applied and construed consistent with the application of such provisions in the GE Global Employee Services Agreement. This Amendment shall constitute a written instrument executed by each of the parties in accordance with Section 3.9 of the GE Global Employee Services Agreement.
3.Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the GE Global Employee Services Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.


[Signature Page Follows]














IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date first above written.






																		
				GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY






By:    /s/ John Godsman                
Name:    John Godsman                    
Title:    VP, Business Development            

						
				By:	/s/ John Godsman
				Name:	John Godsman
				Title:	VP, Business Development
				
				
				BAKER HUGHES HOLDINGS, LLC
				
				By:	/s/ Lee Whitley
				Name:	Lee Whitley
				Title: 	Vice President and Corporate Secretary
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                           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 of Blue Ridge Energy, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick
A. Kelleher, Chief Executive 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 the best of my knowledge:

     (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/ Patrick A. Kelleher
Patrick A. Kelleher
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2003
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 of Virage Logic Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James R. Pekarsky, Vice President of Finance and 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:

          (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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ James R. Pekarsky

James R. Pekarsky
Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
February 14, 2003
| 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. |

|                |        |                                                                         |
|---------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |   |                                                                         |   |
| April      30, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Niv      Krikov                                                     |   |
|                |   | Niv      Krikov                                                              |   |
|                |   | Treasurer,      Chief Financial Officerand      Principal Accounting Officer |   |
|                |   |                                                                         |   |