alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 239 (Friday, December 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32482]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Whitewater River Watershed, Olmsted, Wabasha and Winona Counties, 
MN

AGENCY: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

ACTION: Notice of a finding of no significant impact.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 
(40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
Regulations (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an 
environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Whitewater 
River Watershed, Olmsted, Wabasha and Winona Counties, Minnesota.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William Hunt, State Conservationist, NRCS, 375 Jackson Street Suite 
600, St. Paul, MN 55101.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The environmental assessment of this 
federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause 
significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As 
a result of these findings, William Hunt, State Conservationist, has 
determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact 
statement are not needed for this project.
    The project purposes are watershed protection and water quality. 
The planned works of improvement include conservation land treatment 
measures, accelerated technical assistance and project administration 
for land treatment.
    The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been 
forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various 
Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited 
number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy 
requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the 
environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting 
William Stokes Jr. at (612) 602-7886.
    No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be 
taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal 
Register.

(This activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under No. 10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood 
Prevention, and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 
12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and 
local officials)

    Dated: December 2, 1997.
William Hunt,
State Conservationist.
[FR Doc. 97-32482 Filed 12-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-M
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 14, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 14, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19A1501. THE STATE v. AVERY FOSTER.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4843

_____________________________

GERRY L. PARKER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Tatiana Salvador, Judge.

August 2, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, C.J., and KELSEY and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Gerry L. Parker, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT 32.4







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 Dominos, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 5, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harry J. Silverman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:





| | 1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Harry J. SilvermanHarry J. Silverman Chief Financial Officer










Dated: October
19, 2004









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 Dominos, Inc. and will
be retained by Dominos, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32



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 Western Massachusetts Electric Company (the registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Cheryl W. Grisé, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, and David R. McHale, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 registrant.



/s/ Cheryl W. Grisé

(Signature)

Cheryl W. Grisé

Chief Executive Officer



/s/ David R. McHale

(Signature)

David R. McHale

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



May 9, 2005





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 registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determ ined 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 June 29, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60859 Summary Calendar

BALBINO CERDA VELASQUEZ, Petitioner,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A75 209 037

-------------------- Before JOLLY, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Balbino Cerda Velasquez petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) decision denying his motion to terminate removal proceedings. For the first time in his petition for review, Velasquez argues that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated his due process rights by failing to advise him prior to his applying for advance parole that the immigration judge would lack jurisdiction to adjudicate during his removal proceedings any application for adjustment ofNo. 06-60859 -2- status he might file because he did not have such an application already pending when he was paroled. Velasquez additionally urges, as he did below, that he is eligible for adjustment of status based on unwritten, internal DHS policy. The BIA’s decision not to terminate its proceedings is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. See Gottesman v. INS , 33 F.3d 383, 388 (4th Cir. 1994). Velasquez’s unexhausted due process argument was raised for the first time in his petition for review and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review it. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Wang v. Ashcroft , 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). Internal DHS memoranda are not binding on the BIA, In re Tijam , 22 I&N Dec. 408, 416 (BIA 1998), and, therefore, Velasquez has not shown an abuse of discretion on the part of the BIA.
PETITION DENIED.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-11326

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARK LINNEAR HAYS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CR-141-D

- - - - - - - - - -

April 16, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mark Linnear Hays appeals his convictions and sentences for

conspiracy, obstructing commerce by robbery, using and carrying a

firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and

possession of a firearm by a felon. We GRANT Hays’ motion to

file his reply brief in its present form. Hays’ motions for

reimbursement of costs, return of property, and supplementation

of the record are DENIED.
No. 96-11326

-2-

 

** 378 U.S. 368, 395-96 (1964).

Hays argues that the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), is

unconstitutional as applied to his offense; that Counts 1 and 2

of the indictment are defective; that identification evidence was

tainted by an impermissibly suggestive photographic array; that

evidence seized from a hotel room and Hays’ truck should have

been suppressed; that the Government presented perjured

testimony; that the district court admitted extraneous

prejudicial evidence; that a jury instruction was plain error;

that the jury was tainted by exposure to midtrial publicity; that

his sentence should not have been enhanced pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3559(c); and that trial counsel was ineffective for

“threatening” Hays to accept a plea bargain, disagreeing with

Hays over defense strategy, moving for appointment of cocounsel,

failing to call witnesses, failing to request a Jackson v.

Denno** hearing with regard to the testimony of Hays’ accomplice,

inadequately cross-examining the Government’s expert witnesses

and failing to offer expert testimony on Hays’ behalf, failing to

offer Hays’ medical records into evidence, and stipulating that

Hays had a prior conviction. 

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties

and find no error. Consequently, we AFFIRM.

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN PRESENT FORM

GRANTED; MOTIONS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS, RETURN OF PROPERTY,

AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD DENIED.
#### Charlie H. STREET, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-763.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 25, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
256 La. 371

#### Mrs. Shirley PERRY, Wife of/and Paul Perry v. NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 50600.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1970.

In re: Mrs. Shirley Perry applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Terre-bonne. 233 So.2d 362.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.

SUMMERS, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted. The reduction in the award by the appellate court is unwarranted.
#### William J. CHRISTIE, as Stockholder of the House of Care, Inc., Appellant, v. John P. HIXSON and Margie L. Hixson, Individually, and as officers and directors of the House of Care, Inc., and the House of Care, Inc. (a Florida Corporation), Appellees.

No. 77-761.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 16, 1978.

Ronald A. Nour, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Peter Haddad, Titusville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the record and briefs of counsel for the respective parties, *860we determine the trial court erred in sustaining objections to interrogatories and in entering a protective order as the objections were non-specific and insufficient. *Carson v. City of Fort Lauderdale,*173 So.2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). Accordingly, the order appealed bearing date March 28, 1977 is reversed and the cause remanded with directions that the interrogatories be answered.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

DOWNEY, C. J., and CROSS and MOORE, JJ., concur.
Quarterly Report to Congress on International Monetary Fund Lending

October 1 – December 31, 2015

Board 

Approval Date Country Amount Type U.S. Position Background

10/28/15 Dominica SDR 6.15 million

($8.7 million)

Rapid Credit 

Facility (RCF) 

Disbursement

Support http://www.imf.org/exter

nal/np/sec/pr/2015/pr154

83.htm

11/18/15 Madagascar SDR 30.55 million

($42.1 million)

Rapid Credit 

Facility (RCF) 

Disbursement

Support http://www.imf.org/exter

nal/np/sec/pr/2015/pr155

28.htm

12/18/15 Mozambique SDR 204.5 million

($282.9 million)

Stand-By Credit 

Facility 

Arrangement

Support http://www.imf.org/exter

nal/np/sec/pr/2015/pr155

80.htm
#### W. T. CARMAN and Ruth Carman, his wife, Appellants, v. J. Kenneth SHEPPARD and John E. Blanton, Jr., Appellees.

No. 70-977.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 15, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Indian River County; D. C. Smith, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Clinton Gerald BROWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-955.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 8, 1969.

*790Harvey S. Swickle, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen. and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Clinton Gerald Brown, was charged by information with robbery. He pleaded not guilty and waived trial by jury. Upon trial, the court found him guilty of robbery and sentenced him to eight years in the state penitentiary.

Appellant’s first contention on appeal is that the trial judge committed reversible error in failing to grant a continuance of the trial so that the defendant could make further efforts to obtain private counsel. We cannot agree. The appellant was represented by private counsel for a period of time prior to trial. His private counsel was allowed to withdraw and the public defender was appointed to represent him at trial. The record clearly shows that appellant’s constitutional rights were fully protected and that the court did not abuse his discretion in denying the continuance to the defendant. Jarvis v. State, 115 Fla. 320, 156 So. 310.

Appellant’s second contention is that the trial judge erred in suggesting that if a continuance were to be granted that the bail bond would be raised from One Thousand to Ten Thousand Dollars to cover both cases. We find this contention to be without merit. The record shows good cause for the position taken by the trial judge with regard to increasing the amount of the bond. The court may, for good cause, increase the amount of bail or require additional bail. 4 Fla.Jur. Bail and Recognizance, §§ 32, 33, 35. In the case sub judice there was only an expression by the trial judge that he was inclined to raise the amount of the bond.

We have carefully considered the record on appeal, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that no harmful error has been made to appear. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed.

Affirmed.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 30, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 134954 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 134954 

 COA: 269246 

Kent CC: 05-009552-FC 

LEECLIFTON JEROME MOORE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 20, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

d0123 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 30, 2008 

 Clerk
**Exhibit 32.2.1**

 

**Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Eugene R. McGrath, the Chief Executive Officer of Consolidated Edison Company of New York,Inc. (the “Company”) certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, which this statement accompanies, (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated: August 3, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 233 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 233

  To amend the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 to include 
   financial criminal activities associated with the facilitation of 
severe forms of trafficking in persons within the factors considered as 
 indicia of serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of 
            trafficking in persons, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2021

  Mr. Steil (for himself and Ms. Dean) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 to include 
   financial criminal activities associated with the facilitation of 
severe forms of trafficking in persons within the factors considered as 
 indicia of serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of 
            trafficking in persons, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Exposing the Financing of Human 
Trafficking Act''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF FINANCIAL CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES.

    Subsection (b) of section 108 of the Trafficking Victims Protection 
Act of 2000 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(13) Whether the government of the country vigorously 
        investigates, seeks to prevent, and prosecutes financial 
        criminal activities associated with the facilitation of severe 
        forms of trafficking in persons.''.
                                 <all>
```
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Countrywide Financial Corporation (the "Company") for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew Gissinger III, 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:



/s/ANDREW GISSINGER IIIAndrew Gissinger III
Chief Executive Officer
August 11, 2008


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 Countrywide Financial Corporation and will be retained by Countrywide Financial Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks