alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19716]



[[Page 40403]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

July 21, 1997.
    The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) has submitted the following 
public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the OTS 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
OTS Clearance Officer, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20552.
    Dates: Written comments should be received on or before August 27, 
1997 to be assured of consideration.
    OMB Number: 1550-0060.
    Form Number: OTS Form H-(b)11.
    Type of Review: Extension of an already approved collection.
    Title: Savings Association Holding Company Report H-(b)11.
    Description: The H-(b)11 report is used to determine whether a 
savings association holding company is adhering to the statutes, 
regulations and conditions of approval to acquire an insured 
institution and whether any of the company's activities are injurious 
to the operation of any subsidiary savings association.
    Respondents: Savings and Loan Associations and Savings Banks 
Holding Companies.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 743.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent: 62 hours average.
    Frequency of Response: 4.
    Estimated Total Respondents Burden: 46,066 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Colleen M. Devine, (202) 906-6025, Office of 
Thrift Supervision, 1700 Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of Management 
and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503.
Catherine C. M. Teti,
Director, Records Management and Information Policy.
[FR Doc. 97-19716 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-P
(Reap. Dec. 9106)

#### Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 890328-1/2.

(Decided March 21, 1958)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*751Lawrence, Judge:

When tbis appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff.

An examination of the official record discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by this appeal to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of CEO and CFO  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 on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission by Electronics Boutique Holdings Corp. (the "Company") on the date hereof (the "Report"), Jeffrey W. Griffiths, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James A. Smith,
as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to his knowledge:



|       |  |                                                   |  | 
|------ |  | ------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|       |  |                                                   |  | 
|By:    |  | /s/JEFFREY W. GRIFFITHS                           |  | 
|Name:  |  | Jeffrey W. Griffiths                              |  | 
|Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer             |  | 
|Date:  |  | September 2, 2005                                 |  | 
|       |  |                                                   |  | 
|       |  |                                                   |  | 
|By:    |  | /s/JAMES A. SMITH                                 |  | 
|Name:  |  | James A. Smith                                    |  | 
|Title: |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|Date:  |  | September 2, 2005                                 |  | 

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this certification required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

---



QuickLinks
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
  18 U.S.C. §1350,
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
    In connection with the Annual Report of Rubicon Minerals Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Nicholas J. Nikolakakis, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   March 26, 2014
Original Signed by:





/s/ “Nicholas J. Nikolakakis”

________________________

Nicholas J. Nikolakakis

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2045 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 17, 2012 

Referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require judges 

of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims to reside within fifty miles of the District of 

Columbia, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

S 2045 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT THAT JUDGES ON UNITED 

2 STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS 

3 CLAIMS RESIDE WITHIN FIFTY MILES OF DIS4 TRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

5 (a) RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 7255 of title 38, 

7 United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘§ 7255. Offices, duty stations, and residences 

9 ‘‘(a) PRINCIPAL OFFICE.—The principal office of the 

10 Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims shall be in the 

11 Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, but the Court may 

12 sit at any place within the United States. 

13 ‘‘(b) OFFICIAL DUTY STATIONS.—(1) Except as pro14 vided in paragraph (2), the official duty station of each 

15 judge while in active service shall be the principal office 

16 of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 

17 ‘‘(2) The place where a recall-eligible retired judge 

18 maintains the actual abode in which such judge custom19 arily lives shall be considered the recall-eligible retired 

20 judge’s official duty station. 

21 ‘‘(c) RESIDENCES.—(1) Except as provided in para22 graph (2), after appointment and while in active service, 

23 each judge of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

24 shall reside within 50 miles of the Washington, D.C., met25 ropolitan area. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with 
3 

S 2045 RFH 

1 ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to recall-eligible 

2 retired judges of the Court of Appeals for Veterans 

3 Claims.’’. 

4 (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sec5 tions at the beginning of chapter 72 of such title is 

6 amended by striking the item relating to section 

7 7255 and inserting the following new item: 

‘‘7255. Offices, duty stations, and residences.’’. 

8 (b) REMOVAL.—Section 7253(f)(1) of such title is 

9 amended by striking ‘‘or engaging in the practice of law’’ 

10 and inserting ‘‘engaging in the practice of law, or violating 

11 section 7255(c) of this title’’. 

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

13 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 

14 7255 of such title, as added by subsection (a), and 

15 the amendment made by subsection (b) shall take ef16 fect on the date that is 180 days after the date of 

17 the enactment of this Act. 

18 (2) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by 

19 subsection (b) shall apply with respect to judges con20 firmed on or after January 1, 2012. 

Passed the Senate December 13, 2012. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with
# C_2013164EN.01001103.xml

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Melun (France) lodged on 3 April 2013 — Sophie Mukarubega v Préfet de police, Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis

(Case C-166/13)

2013/C 164/20

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Melun

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sophie Mukarubega

Applicant:

Defendants: Préfet de police, Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the right to be heard in all proceedings, which is an integral part of the fundamental principle of respect for the rights of the defence and is furthermore enshrined by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as requiring that, where the administration intends to issue a return decision in respect of an illegally staying alien, irrespective of whether or not that return decision is taken after a refusal of a residence permit, and in particular in a situation where there is a risk of absconding, the administration must enable the interested party to present observations? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the right to be heard in all proceedings, which is an integral part of the fundamental principle of respect for the rights of the defence and is furthermore enshrined by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as requiring that, where the administration intends to issue a return decision in respect of an illegally staying alien, irrespective of whether or not that return decision is taken after a refusal of a residence permit, and in particular in a situation where there is a risk of absconding, the administration must enable the interested party to present observations?

| 2. | Does the suspensive effect of the misuse of powers proceedings before the administrative court mean that it is possible to dispense with the prior right of an illegally staying alien to make his observations known with regard to the proposed removal measure to be taken against him? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the suspensive effect of the misuse of powers proceedings before the administrative court mean that it is possible to dispense with the prior right of an illegally staying alien to make his observations known with regard to the proposed removal measure to be taken against him?

---
No. 96-5643.

#### Hussein *v.*Raban Supply Co.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
1

The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1471

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Wallace Graham, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 7, 2010

Filed: September 30, 2010

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Wallace Graham appeals the sentence the District Court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1). His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the District Court's determination that

Graham had three predicate felony offenses and was thus subject to an enhanced

sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) and U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4. In a pro se brief, Graham

argues that the government had the burden of proving three predicate convictions, that
-2-

sections 922(g)(1) and 924(e) violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and that the

presentence report (PSR) contained unspecified factual errors. 

We agree with the District Court that Graham had three predicate felony

convictions, which qualified him for an enhanced sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1)

(stating that a person who violates § 922(g) and has three previous convictions for a

violent felony or a serious drug offense that were committed on occasions different

from one another, shall be imprisoned for not less than fifteen years). Specifically,

we conclude that Graham's convictions for aggravated assault in 1996, attempted

robbery in 1999, and second degree battery in 2000 were for violent felonies. See 18

U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) (stating that "violent felony" means, inter alia, any crime

punishable by imprisonment for term exceeding one year that "has as an element the

use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another");

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-204 (elements of aggravated assault), § 5-12-102 (elements

of robbery), § 5-3-201 (conduct constituting attempt), § 5-13-202 (elements of second

degree battery), § 5-4-401 (listing maximum prison sentences). 

Having carefully considered Graham's pro se arguments, we conclude that they

lack merit: Graham did not dispute the PSR's factual statements that he had sustained

these three convictions, see United States v. Redding, 16 F.3d 298, 302 (8th Cir.

1994); statutes are not subject to administrative rulemaking requirements; and

Graham's claim that the PSR contained factual errors is entirely conclusory. We deny

as moot Graham's pending motion regarding his brief. 

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to

withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the District Court. 

______________________________
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 18

- 00336

- CR

MICHAEL RAY FERGUSON

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law

Navarro County, Texas

Trial Court No. C37620

- CR

ORDER

T his appeal was placed “ at issue ” on July 7, 2019. After reviewing the briefs, the

Court learned that one of appellant’s issues challenges the trial court’s ruling on

appellant’s motion to suppress. However, the Court has no transcription of the motion

to suppress as a part of the repor ter’s record.

Accordingly, the “at issue” status of this appeal is set aside. T he Court Reporter

is ORDERED to supplement the reporter’s record within 21 days from the date of thisFerguson v. State Page 2

order with a transcription of the hearing on appellant’s Motion to Suppre ss which

appears to have occurred on or about May 30, 2018. 1

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Order issued and filed January 10 , 2020

[RWR]

1 It appears a reporter’s record was prepared but not filed because the briefs of the parties referenced a

reporter’s record. Accordingly, this appeal will again be considered “at issue” when the required record is

filed unless a party files a motion for additional brie fing based on the record filed.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2099 

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act with respect to information 

provided to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2012 

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota (for himself and Mr. SHELBY) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act with respect 

to information provided to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FDIA AMENDMENTS REGARDING DISCLOSURES 

4 TO THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

5 PROTECTION. 

6 The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1811 

7 et seq.) is amended— 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2099 IS

1 (1) in section 11(t)(2)(A) (12 U.S.C. 

2 1821(t)(2)(A)), by inserting after clause (v) the fol3 lowing: 

4 ‘‘(vi) The Bureau of Consumer Finan5 cial Protection.’’; and 

6 (2) in section 18(x) (12 U.S.C. 1828(x))— 

7 (A) by inserting ‘‘the Bureau of Consumer 

8 Financial Protection,’’ before ‘‘any Federal 

9 banking agency’’ each place that term appears; 

10 and 

11 (B) by striking ‘‘such agency’’ each place 

12 that term appears and inserting ‘‘such Bureau, 

13 agency’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 55621.

#### Eastern Grocery Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 99402—K (A), etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 6077.

#### BANCROFT, ROSS & SINCLAIR CO. LTD., vs. EDWARD WISNER.

Syllabus.

Involves only issues of fact.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “C,” No. 95,471. Hon. E. K. Skinner, Judge.

J. E. Zunts, for plaintiff and .appellee.

R. S. Outlaw, W. H Byrnes, Jr., attorneys.

*241Foster, Milling, Brian & Saal, for defendant and appellant.

His Honor JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

This is a claim against defendant personally for repairs made to a dredge boat belonging to the Suburban Bealty Co., and leased to the Winamac Bridge Co.

The trial Judge thus disposed of the matter and we adopt his views:

> “The evidence of three witnesses shows that the credit herein was extended to Edward Wisner. When he was interviewed he apparently was indifferent as to whether the credit was. extended to him and did not explain that the Winamac Bridge Co., was the party for whom the work was to be done, and that the Suburban Co., was the owner of the dredge to be repaired. In fact his relation to those companies seem so secure that he did not indicate that either of these companies was the real obligor, but allowed the repairs to be made by plaintiff on his credit; and he cannot now escape the responsibility arising from conditions he permitted others to act upon. He is estopped. ’ ’

The contentions set up that defendant ordered the re pairs for account of the Suburban Bealty Co., is disposed of by, evidence introduced by himself, to-wit: Document D. 10, showing that at a meeting of the directors of said company, at which he presided, a resolution was adopted (without objection from him) declaring in effect that the repairs were not ordered by said Surburban Co., or for its account; and Document D 11, showing that said Suburban Co., (of which he was then president) assumed the position that the Winamac Bridge Co., was primarily liable and the Suburban Co., only as surety.

*242Opinion and decree, May *4,*1914.

Rehearing refused, June 1. 1914.

Writ denied June 30, 1914.

In this however we mean to express no opinion as to the rights of Wisner and the Suburban Co. inter sese.

Judgement affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

JEROME WRIGHT, SR. & HEIRS, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

EQUITY INDEXED MANAGED FUND, 

LLC, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 77 EM 2016 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 20th day of July, 2016, the “Notice of Removal to the King’s 

Bench” is DENIED.
# C_2013026EN.01005402.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/54

---

Action brought on 9 November 2012 — Eckes-Granini v OHIM — Panini (PANINI)

(Case T-487/12)

2013/C 26/110

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Eckes-Granini Group GmbH (Nieder-Olm, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Panini SpA (Modena, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2012 in case R 2393/2011-2; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2012 in case R 2393/2011-2; and

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘PANINI’, for goods in class 32 — Community trade mark application No 8721987

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 121780 of the word mark ‘GRANINI’, for inter alia goods in class 32; German trade mark registration No 30315871 of the word mark ‘GRANINI’ for inter alia goods in class 32

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---