alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32765]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-13-000]


Enron Energy Services Power, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order

December 11, 1997.
    Enron Energy Services Power, Inc. (Enron Energy), is a power 
marketing affiliate of Enron Corporation and Portland General Electric 
Company. It also is an affiliate of Enron Power Marketing, Inc., 
another power-marketer with market-based rate authorization. Enron 
Energy filed an application for authorization to sell electric energy 
and capacity at market-based rates, and for certain waivers and 
authorizations. In particular, Enron Energy requested that the 
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liabilities by Enron Energy. 
On November 26, 1997, the Commission issued an Order Conditionally 
Accepting For Filing Proposed Market-Based Rates (Order), in the above-
docketed proceeding.
    The Commission's November 26, 1997 Order granted the request for 
blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the conditions found in 
Ordering Paragraphs (D), (E), and (G):
    (D) Within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, any 
person desiring to be heard or to protest the Commission's blanket 
approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities by 
Enron Energy should file a motion to intervene or protest with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214.
    (E) Absent a request to be heard within the period set forth in 
Ordering Paragraph (D) above, Enron Energy is hereby authorized, 
pursuant to section 204 of the FPA, to issue securities and assume 
obligations and liabilities as guarantor, indorser, surety, or 
otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that 
such issue or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate 
purposes of Enron Energy, compatible with the public interest, and 
reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    (G) The Commission reserves the right to modify this order to 
require a further showing that neither public nor private interests 
will be adversely affected by continued Commission approval of Enron 
Energy's issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities. * * * 
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is December 29, 1997.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32765 Filed 12-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 5907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3216]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 78

[Docket No. 96-045-2]


Brucellosis in Cattle; State and Area Classifications; New Mexico

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim 
rule that amended the brucellosis regulations concerning the interstate 
movement of cattle by changing the classification of New Mexico from 
Class A to Class Free. We have determined that New Mexico meets the 
standards for Class Free status. The interim rule was necessary to 
relieve certain restrictions on the interstate movement of cattle from 
New Mexico.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The interim rule was effective on November 18, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael J. Gilsdorf, Senior Staff 
Veterinarian, Brucellosis Eradication Staff, VS, APHIS, suite 3B08, 
4700 River Road Unit 36, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, (301) 734-7708.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In an interim rule effective and published in the Federal Register 
on November 18, 1996 (61 FR 58625-58626, Docket No. 96-045-1), we 
amended the brucellosis regulations in 9 CFR part 78 by removing New 
Mexico from the list of Class A States in Sec. 78.41(b) and adding it 
to the list of Class Free States in Sec. 78.41(a).
    Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or 
before January 17, 1997. We did not receive any comments. The facts 
presented in the interim rule still provide a basis for the rule.
    This action also affirms the information contained in the interim 
rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has 
waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 78

    Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs, Quarantine, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

PART 78--BRUCELLOSIS

    Accordingly, we are adopting as a final rule, without change, the 
interim rule that amended 9 CFR 78 and that was published at 61 FR 
58625-58626 on November 18, 1996.

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111-114a-1, 114g, 115, 117, 120, 121, 123-
126, 134b, and 134f; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

    Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of February 1997.
Terry L. Medley,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 97-3216 Filed 2-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
EXHIBIT 15.2

Consent of Jun He Law Offices

April 25, 2012

AutoNavi Holdings Limited

16/F,
Section A, Focus Square

No 6. Futong East Avenue, Wangjing

Chaoyang District

Beijing 100102

The Peoples Republic of China

Dear Sir or Madam,

We hereby consent to the references to us by AutoNavi Holdings Limited (the Company) under the heading Risks Related to Our Corporate
Structure, Risks Related to Doing Business in China and Regulation in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Yours faithfully,

For and on behalf of

|                      
|----------------------
|                      
|/s/ Jun He Law Offices
Financial Literacy and Education Commission Public Meeting

AGENDA

November 17, 2022, 9:00 - 10:30AM ET

In Person and Via Webcast http://www.yorkcast.com/treasury/events/2022/11/17/flec

Welcome and Overview by FLEC Chair and Vice Chair

• Adair Morse, Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Moderator

• Nellie Liang, Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 

Designee of Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen, Chair

• Rohit Chopra, Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, Vice Chair

FLEC Principal Member Remarks

• Michelle Bowman, Governor, Federal Reserve Board of Governors (Via Zoom)

• Martin Gruenberg, Acting Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

• Michael Hsu, Acting Comptroller, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (Via Zoom)

• Lina Khan, Chair, Federal Trade Commission (Via Zoom)

FHFA Principal Welcome Address

• Sandra Thompson, Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency

5 MINUTE BREAK

FLEC Action Item in Digital Asset Executive Order Recommendations

• Natalia Li, Deputy Director, Financial Institutions, U.S. Department of the Treasury

Federal Student Aid Update

• Rich Cordray, Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid, Department of Education (Via 

Zoom)

Climate Report Update

• Adair Morse, Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury

FLEC Member Discussion

Conclusion
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 Annual Report of Hugoton Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in
its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its 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 Trust.
 
 Bank of
America, N.A.,
 Trustee
for Hugoton Royalty Trust
 
 
 
 
 February
      22, 2010
              By:  /s/Nancy
      G. Willis
 Nancy G.
Willis
 Vice
President
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33630]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, January 16, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Fl. Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-33630 Filed 12-19-97; 2:36 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.19


          The undersigned, Foundation for the International Non-governmental
Development of Space (FINDS), a Delaware not for profit organization located at
2000 L Street, NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036, hereby agrees to loan to US
Wats, Inc. ("USW") or its subsidiary, Capsule Communications, Inc. ("Capsule"),
the sum of up to $500,000 (the "Maximum Amount"), at such times and in such
amounts, not to exceed in the aggregate the Maximum Amount, as USW or Capsule,
as applicable and acting through its President, shall request.  The foregoing
agreement of FINDS shall be on, and subject to, the following conditions:

          1.  References below to the "Company" shall mean whichever of USW or
Capsule is the borrower of sums from FINDS.

          2.  The Company may request FINDS to loan it at any time and from time
to time, on or before APRIL 30, 2000, up to the Maximum Amount by giving FINDS
three (3) days prior written notice. FINDS shall have no obligation to loan the
Company any sums for which the Company has not made a request for an advance
prior to APRIL 27, 2000.

          3.  The amounts loaned by FINDS to the Company shall accrue interest
from the date(s) made at the rate of 10% per annum, and all amounts so loaned,
together with accrued interest thereon, shall become due and payable on March 1,
2001.

          4.  The Company shall have the right to prepay all or any part of the
amounts loaned by FINDS, together with accrued interest thereon, without premium
or penalty. In addition, the Company may, at its option, repay or prepay, and
FINDS may, at its option, convert all or any portion of the amounts loaned by
FINDS, together with accrued interest thereon, by issuing to FINDS shares of
Company common stock, with the amount of each share valued at 90% of the average
Market Price, with such average computed based on the [30]-day trading period
preceding the date of this agreement, or $2.50. The term "Market Price" shall
have the meaning assigned to it in Section 7 of the USW 1999 Stock Option Plan.

          5.  FINDS acknowledges its understanding that any shares of Company
common stock issued to it pursuant to paragraph 4 will constitute "restricted
securities" and will not be eligible for resale unless registered under the
Securities Act of 1933 or unless an exemption from such registration
requirements is applicable, and represents and warrants that it is acquring any
such shares for its own account without a view to distribution.

                                    Sincerely,


                                    FINDS
                                    Date:
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Donald WILSON v. CRIMINAL DIST. COURT, Hon. Judge Frank J. Shea, Section “G”.

No. 61559.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 3, 1978.

In re: Donald Wilson, applying for writ of mandamus.

Mandamus granted.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                  Certification Pursuant To Section 906 Of The
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Datascope
Corp. (the "Company") for the Quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         o     the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
               13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

         o     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
               all material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.


May 17, 2004


                              /s/ Lawrence Saper
                              -------------------
                              Lawrence Saper
                              Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer




                              /s/ Murray Pitkowsky
                              -------------------
                              Murray Pitkowsky
                              Senior V.P., Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Joseph BROWN v. CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, SECTION “B” PARISH OF ORLEANS.

No. 62371.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 16, 1978.

In re: Joseph Brown applying for Writ of Mandamus. Orleans Parish.

Writ granted. Clerk is ordered to transfer a copy of this application to the trial court for action.
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 Annual Report of CRYO-CELL International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended November 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mercedes Walton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, Jill M. Taymans, 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 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/ Mercedes WaltonMercedes WaltonInterim Chief Executive OfficerMarch 29, 2004/s/ Jill M. TaymansJill M. TaymansVice President, Finance (Chief Financial Officer)March 29, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2501 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2501

      To require the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration and the Federal Communications Commission to update the 
         memorandum of understanding on spectrum coordination.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 2021

Mr. Bilirakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To require the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration and the Federal Communications Commission to update the 
         memorandum of understanding on spectrum coordination.

    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 ``Spectrum Coordination Act''.

SEC. 2. UPDATE OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON SPECTRUM COORDINATION 
              BETWEEN NTIA AND FCC.

    Not later than December 31, 2022, the National Telecommunications 
and Information Administration and the Federal Communications 
Commission shall update the Memorandum of Understanding on Spectrum 
Coordination entered into in January 2003, to--
            (1) improve the process for resolving frequency allocation 
        disputes in shared or adjacent bands to ensure that such 
        disputes are resolved expeditiously and efficiently; and
            (2) ensure that spectrum is used or shared efficiently.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Miguel ZACARIAS-ORTIZ, aka Coyotito, Defendant— Appellant.

No. 00-50234.

D.C. No. CR-98-03556-09-IEG.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submission Deferred May 22, 2001.

Submitted Aug. 16, 2002 *.

Decided Aug. 16, 2002.

Before D.W. NELSON, FERNANDEZ and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Miguel Angel Zacarias-Ortiz appeals the judgment and sentence for one count of conspiring to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction and we affirm.

Zacarias-Ortiz’s waiver of a jury trial was knowing and voluntary. He did not have to be advised that the jury would come from the community or that he could participate in its selection. Zacarias-Ortiz and counsel signed a written waiver, and the oral colloquy was adequate to ensure Zacarias-Ortiz’s understanding of the waiver. *See United States v. Duarte-Hi-gareda,*113 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir.1997); *United States v. Cochran,*770 F.2d 850, 851 (9th Cir.1985). The record reflects that an interpreter was present and assisted him. Nor is the waiver invalid in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); *Apprendi*has nothing to do with whether the case will be tried to a jury or to the judge.

Zacarias-Ortiz’s argument that *Apprendi*renders 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) facially unconstitutional is foreclosed by *United States v. Buckland,*289 F.3d 558, 563-68 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc). His claim that the government was required to prove that he knew the quantity and type of the drugs involved in his offenses is foreclosed by *United States v. Carranza,*289 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir.2002).

Zacarias-Ortiz’s as-applied challenge to his sentence under *Apprendi*also fails; he was not prejudiced by any *Apprendi*error because he was sentenced below the lowest applicable statutory maximum for methamphetamine. *See United States v. Scheele,*231 F.3d 492, 497 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2000).

There was no plain error in the district court’s failure to apply a clear-and-eonvinc-ing standard in determining Zacarias-Or-tiz’s base offense level on the basis of drug quantity. “[D]ue process does not require the application of the clear and convincing standard when ‘the extent of the conspiracy caused the tremendous increase in sentence.’ ” *United States v. Johansson,*249 F.3d 848, 855 (9th Cir.2001) *quoting United States v. Harrison-Philpot,*978 F.2d 1520, 1522 (9th Cir.1992). The district *265court’s determination of drug quantity relied on the scope of the conspiracy beyond Zacarias-Ortiz’s own involvement, based on its finding that he supported and assisted in the entire scheme in order to benefit himself. That finding is not clearly erroneous.

Finally, we have reviewed the government’s in camera submission, and see no error in the district court’s decision.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Executive Consulting Group — N.Y., Appellant, v Ernst & Young, LLP, Respondent.

[736 NYS2d 253]

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract in connection with an employment referral agreement, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated November 16, 2000, as denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly found the existence of disputed factual issues sufficient to warrant the denial of the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment *(see,*CPLR 3212 [b]; *Barrister Referrals v Windels, Marx, Davies & Ives,*169 AD2d 622, 623; *Ritta Personnel v Andrew F. Capoccia, P.C.,*144 AD2d 196). Florio, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
#### Von Elton CHAMPION v. FARM BUREAU INSURANCE CO.

No. 61384.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

In re: Von Elton Champion, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Natchitoches. 352 So.2d 737.

Writ denied.
|                    |              |                        |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|--------------------|--------------|------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|
|                    |              |                        |
| Name of Subsidiary |    | State of Incorporation |
| Spyce Food Co.     |    | Delaware               |

|     |                           |  |  |  |  |
|-----|---------------------------|--|--|--|--|
| (1) | As of March 1, 2022. |

|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |  |  |  |  |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
| (2) | Pursuant to item 601(b)(21)(ii) of Regulation S-K, the names of 27 consolidated wholly owned subsidiaries, all within the United States and carrying on the same line of business, have been omitted. |

|     |                                         |  |  |  |  |
|-----|-----------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
| (3) | 7 such subsidiaries have been excluded. |