alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 162 (Thursday, August 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22122]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB Under 
Delegated Authority

Background

    Notice is hereby given of the final approval of a proposed 
information collection by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System (Board) under OMB delegated authority, as per 5 CFR 1320.16 (OMB 
Regulations on Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public). The 
Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not 
required to respond to, an information collection that has been 
extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless 
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chief, Financial Reports Section--Mary M. McLaughlin--Division of 
Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System, Washington, DC 20551 (202-452-3829)
OMB Desk Officer--Alexander T. Hunt--Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive 
Office Building, Room 3208, Washington, DC 20503 (202-395-7860)
    Final approval under OMB delegated authority of the extension for 
three years, with revision, of the following report:
    1. Report title: Report of Terms of Credit Card Plans
Agency form number: FR 2572
OMB Control number: 7100-0239
Effective Date: Reporting period ending January 31, 1998
Frequency: Semiannually
Reporters: Financial institutions
Annual reporting hours: 77
Estimated average hours per response: 0.25
Number of respondents: 153
Small businesses are not affected.
    General description of report: This information collection is 
voluntary (15 U.S.C. 1646(b)) and is not given confidential treatment.
    Abstract: The FR 2572 collects data on credit card pricing and 
availability from a sample of at least 150 financial institutions that 
offer credit cards. The information is reported to the Congress and 
made available to the public in order to promote competition within the 
industry. The revisions modify the report instructions to clarify the 
treatment of introductory or teaser rates and modify the reporting form 
to include an option to indicate the availability of such a rate. The 
general instructions now define more explicitly the nature of the 
credit card plan to be reported.
    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 14, 
1997.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-22122 Filed 8-90-97; 8:45 am]
Billing Code 6210-01-F
Docket ID: FAA-2015-2460 Dir ID: 2014-NM-163-AD
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

August 31, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60467

Summary Calendar

RAYMOND NAZIEN,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A18-800-891

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Raymond Nazien, a native of Haiti, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) finding him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a) (43)(B). Nazien also seeks review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand for

consideration of new evidence to support his claim that he is a citizen of the United States.-2-

This court does no t have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal of an alien who is

removable for being convicted of certain criminal offenses. S ee 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). This court

does have “jurisdiction t o review jurisdictional facts and determine the proper scope of its own

jurisdiction.” Flores-Garza v. INS , 328 F.3d 797, 802 (5th Cir. 2003).

Nazien does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he is removable for being convicted

of a criminal offense. Nazien argues that the BIA erred in finding that he was not a citizen under 8

U.S.C. § 1433. As the BIA found, the record contains no evidence that Nazien’s father filed an

application seeking to make Nazien a citizen after Nazien’s father was naturalized in 1973. There is

no substantial issue of fact that, if resolved in his favor, would show that Nazien is not an alien. S ee

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5). Accordingly, this court is without jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order. S ee

Balogun v. Ashcroft , 270 F.3d 274, 277-78 (5th Cir. 2001).

Nazien argues for the first time on appeal that he is a “national” of the Unites States because

h is parents intended that he become a citizen. Nazien’s failure to raise this claim before t he BIA

deprives this court of jurisdiction over the issue. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); W ang v. Ashcroft

, 260 F.3d

448, 452- 453 (5th Cir. 2001).

Nazien’s petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
#### TREASURE LAKE OF GEORGIA, INC., Treasure Lake of North Carolina, Inc., Treasure Lake of Pennsylvania, Inc., Appellants, v. HAROLD MILLER MARKETEER, INC., Appellee.

No. 77-1216.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 2, 1978.

Shapiro & Marcus, Miami, for appellants.

Howard R. Hirsch, Miami Beach, for ap-pellee.

Before HENDRY and HUBBART, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The defendants appeal from an adverse final judgment entered upon a non-jury trial in an action for damages for alleged breach of employment contract. By a written contract the defendants employed the appellee-plaintiff for the calendar year 1975 to perform certain stated services at a salary of $3,000.00 per month. The contract provision for termination therein was as follows: “This agreement can be terminated at any time upon the written notice of both parties.” Prior to the end of the year, by a letter exchanged between the parties, the employment contract was extended for the year 1976 on the same terms. On September 15, 1976, by written notice, the em*112ployers terminated the agreement, purportedly as of August 31, 1976.1

The appellee filed action, claiming breach of contract. The plaintiff stated he was paid through August, 1976, and sought recovery of the salary for September through December, 1976. The defendants relied upon the right to terminate the contract by notice. The court held the plaintiff-employee was entitled to recover the salary for the balance of the year, with interest after January 1, 1977. Defendants appealed.

Inherent in the judgment was a ruling by the trial court that the termination clause in the contract would not permit either party to terminate the contract and that the meaning of the termination provision was that the contract could be terminated only by mutual consent. With that interpretation of the contract we cannot agree, and we hold that the provision in question entitled the employer to terminate the contract. The termination was effective in September of 1976 and the employee is entitled to be paid for that month. Accordingly, the judgment is amended to constitute a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants for the sum of $3,000.00 with interest thereon at 6% from September, 1976 and costs in the amount of $85.50.

Judgment amended, and, as amended, affirmed.

1

. The termination letter included the following statements:

> “As expressed in prior conversations, our marketing and sales programs are not definite at this time and, accordingly, there are no reasons to justify extending our arrangement beyond August 31, 1976.

> “Should our future plans require your talents, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss possible areas of mutual interest. As for the present, however, please consider this letter as formally confirming our previous understanding that our arrangement for your services is to be discontinued as of August 31, 1976.”
No. 99-1092.

#### Taylor et al. *v.*Virginia Union University.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# L_2023050EN.01000101.xml

| 17.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 50/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 50/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2023/362

of 14 February 2023

on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Japan on certain provisions of agreements between Member States of the European Union and Japan for air services

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 100(2), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with an agreement at Union level. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements with an agreement at Union level.

| (2) | The Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Union, an Agreement between the European Union and Japan on certain provisions of agreements between Member States of the European Union and Japan for air services (‘the Agreement’). The negotiations were successfully concluded by the initialling of the Agreement on 21 September 2022. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Commission has negotiated, on behalf of the Union, an Agreement between the European Union and Japan on certain provisions of agreements between Member States of the European Union and Japan for air services (‘the Agreement’). The negotiations were successfully concluded by the initialling of the Agreement on 21 September 2022.

| (3) | The objective of the Agreement is to bring bilateral air services agreements between 13 Member States and Japan in line with Union law. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The objective of the Agreement is to bring bilateral air services agreements between 13 Member States and Japan in line with Union law.

| (4) | The Agreement should be signed on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion at a later date, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Agreement should be signed on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion at a later date,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The signing on behalf of the Union of the Agreement between the European Union and Japan on certain provisions of agreements between Member States of the European Union and Japan for air services (‘the Agreement’) is hereby authorised, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (1).

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 14 February 2023.

For the Council

The President

E. SVANTESSON

---

(1)  The text of the Agreement will be published together with the decision on its conclusion.

1

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41297 Summary Calendar

JAMES O’DELL WALTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON; ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-96-CV-640

- - - - - - - - - - November 24, 1998 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * James O’Dell Walton, Texas prisoner # 651346, seeks to remove his case from the district court to this court. Walton asserts that the magistrate judge to whom his case has been assigned is conspiring with the defendants to thwart his civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This appeal is premature because no final order has yet been entered with regard to Walton’s claims. See Dillon v. State of Mississippi Military Dep’t , 23 F.3d 915, 917 (5th Cir. 1994); 28No. 97-41297 -2- U.S.C. § 1291. As a result, this court lacks jurisdiction even to consider this appeal. Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545 (1949). This appeal is, moreover, frivolous, and is hereby DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
No. 9237.

#### Meier, Admr. *v.*Steinkamp et al.

(Decided April 17, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Mr. Arnold Speiser; Mr. Joseph Schroder; Mr. John Schwab*and *Mr. Denis F. Cash,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John G. Healy; Messrs. Powell & Smiley; Mr. Chris Von S eg gem*and *Messrs. Phares, Gusweiler, & Rosenberg,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.13

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

EXTERRAN HOLDINGS, INC. 2013 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

 

This First Amendment to the Exterran Holdings, Inc. 2013 Stock Incentive Plan (this “First  Amendment”), is made and adopted by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Exterran Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), effective as of the Effective Date (as defined below).

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Exterran Holdings, Inc. 2013 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”);

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIV of the Plan, the Board has the authority to alter, modify or amend the Plan or any part thereof at any time or from time to time;

 

WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the Company will spin-off Exterran Corporation, a Delaware corporation, into a new publicly-traded company (the “Spin-Off”);

 

WHEREAS, in connection with the Spin-Off, the Company will change its name to Archrock, Inc.; and

 

WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan in order to reflect the new name of the Company following the Spin-Off, effective as of the date of the consummation of the Spin-Off (the “Effective Date”).

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan is hereby amended as follows, subject to, and effective as of the Effective Date:

 

AMENDMENT

 

1.             Name of Plan.  The name of the Plan shall be amended to “Archrock, Inc. 2013 Stock Incentive Plan.”

 

2.             References.  All references in the Plan to (i) “Exterran Holdings, Inc.” shall be amended to refer to “Archrock, Inc.”; (ii) “Exterran Holdings, Inc. 2013 Stock Incentive Plan shall be amended to refer to “Archrock, Inc. 2013 Stock Incentive Plan”; (iii) “Exterran Holdings, Inc. Amended and Restated 2007 Plan” shall be amended to refer to “Archrock, Inc. Amended and Restated 2007 Stock Incentive Plan”; and (iv) “Exterran Partners, L.P.” shall be amended to refer to “Archrock Partners, L.P.”

 

3.             General.  This First Amendment shall be and hereby is incorporated into and forms a part of the Plan, and except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

 











 

I hereby certify that the foregoing First Amendment was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of Exterran Holdings, Inc. on October 30, 2015.

 

Executed on this 3rd day of November, 2015.

 

 

	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   D. Bradley Childers
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
D.   Bradley Childers
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
President
    


 

Signature Page to First Amendment to the

Exterran Holdings, Inc. 2013 Stock Incentive Plan
#### Huey P. GUILLOT v. Andrew J. GUILLOT.

No. 60266.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 30, 1977.

In re: Andrew J. Guillot applying for :ertiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Lafourche, 146 So.2d 813.

Writ denied. Judgment not final.
#### Frank F. MAJEWSKI and Florence J. Majewski, his wife, Petitioners, v. Al J. SCHECHTER, Trustee, Respondent.

No. 77-1373.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 9, 1977.

John A. Fitzsimmons, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.

Maurice M. Garcia of Abrams, Anton, Robbins, Resnick & Schneider, P. A., Hollywood, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DENIED.

CROSS, DAUKSCH and LETTS, JJ., concur.
# DLA Distribution honored with Energy award

/ Published Jan. 26, 2017
OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla., Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Oklahoma City, Okla., was honored with the 2016 Federal Energy and Water Management Award in December for implementing a process to convert existing steam heating to a more efficient natural gas heating system in eight of its facilities.
The award, presented by the Federal Energy Management Program in conjunction with the Interagency Energy Management Task Force, serves to recognize individuals and organizations that have made significant contributions to energy and water efficiency within the federal government.

The project at DLA Distribution Oklahoma City included the replacement of steam unit heaters with infrared radiant heaters in warehouse areas, comprising the majority of the space, and replacement of steam to hot water converters with high-efficiency condensing hot water boilers for office and service areas. 

The project also implemented energy conservation measures in eight buildings and an additional six identified through an audit, including: T5HO (high output) fluorescent lighting; lighting controls; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning upgrades; efficient IR gas heaters; premium efficiency motors; direct digital controls; programmable thermostats; insulation upgrades; low-flow aerators; and advanced electric and gas meters to better track energy consumption. 

In only the first six months, the project reduced energy use by 27 percent and saved nearly $700,000 in utilities from the prior year.
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 Annual Report of American Physicians Service Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
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 his 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 operation of
     the Company.



/s/ William H. Hayes
-------------------------
William H. Hayes                                   Date: March 13, 2006
Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-40396

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Horacio Velez-Escalante, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:20-CR-751-1

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Horacio VelezEscalante has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Velez-Escalante has not filed a response. We have 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 22, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-40396 Document: 00516141329 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2021
No. 21-40396

2

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for 

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. 

R. 42.2.

Case: 21-40396 Document: 00516141329 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2021
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 06-2129

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellant,

v.

KENNY BARNES,

Defendant, Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on October 29, 2007, is

amended as follows:

On page 5, line 20 : "McCann" should be "McMann"

On page 6, line 1 : "McCann's" should be "McMann's"
STATE OF MINNESOTA 

IN SUPREME COURT 

A14-0128 

State of Minnesota, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

Cree Rae Larson, 

Respondent. 

ORDER 

OFFICE OF 

APPELLATE COURTS 

AUG 1 9 2015 

FILED 

Respondent filed a motion for attorney fees and costs for the time respondent's 

counsel spent and the expenses incurred in preparing his brief. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 

29.04, subd. 10(3) ("Reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred must be allowed to the 

defendant on an appeal to the Supreme Court by the prosecutor in a case originally 

appealed by the prosecutor to the Court of Appeals .... "). In an order filed on December 

22, 2014, we deferred ruling on respondent's motion, explaining that we could not assess 

the reasonableness of the attorney fees request on the current record, given the unique facts 

of this case. We ordered respondent's counsel to provide us with additional information 

related to his attorney fees request by January 5, 2015. Respondent has not provided the 

additional infonnation requested by the court. 

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, 

1 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Respondent Cree Rae Larson's motion for an award of attorney fees and 

costs is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is denied with respect to the request 

for an award of attorney fees but is granted with respect to the request for an award of 

costs. 

2. The City of Minneapolis shall pay respondent's counsel $66.08 in out-ofpocket costs. 

Dated: August 19,2015 

2 

G. Barry Anderson 

Associate Justice