alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 175 (Monday, September 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 45627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19507]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice of Termination of Receiverships

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as 
Receiver for each of the following insured depository institutions, was 
charged with the duty of winding up the affairs of the former 
institutions and liquidating all related assets. The Receiver has 
fulfilled its obligations and made all dividend distributions required 
by law.

                                     Notice of Termination of Receiverships
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Termination
           Fund                Receivership name               City                  State             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4632......................  BestBank...............  Boulder................  CO                        9/1/2018
10083.....................  Vineyard Bank, National  Rancho Cucamonga.......  CA                        9/1/2018
                             Association.
10096.....................  Peoples Community Bank.  West Chester...........  OH                        9/1/2018
10204.....................  First Lowndes Bank.....  Fort Deposit...........  AL                        9/1/2018
10266.....................  Home Valley Bank.......  Cave Junction..........  OR                        9/1/2018
10519.....................  Trust Company Bank.....  Memphis................  TN                        9/1/2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-
Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all 
documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which 
FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary, including but 
not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, 
assignments, and deeds. Effective on the termination dates listed 
above, the Receiverships have been terminated, the Receiver has been 
discharged, and the Receiverships have ceased to exist as legal 
entities.

    Dated at Washington, DC, on September 5, 2018.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19507 Filed 9-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014 (the Report) of Garrison Capital Inc. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joseph Tansey, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: (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 Registrant. /s/ Joseph Tansey Joseph Tansey Chief Executive Officer May 9, 2014
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.46 MB)

Tags:fort belvoir, McNamara Headquarters Complex, dla, mwr, Family Day , People and Culture, Defense Logistics Agency, Children

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3014

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Daman Charles Julian

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

 ____________

 Submitted: April 15, 2022

Filed: April 20, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Daman Julian appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense and the district

court1

 imposed the sentence jointly recommended by the parties. His counsel has

1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, then United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa, now Chief Judge.
moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), questioning the substantive reasonableness of Julian’s sentence. Julian has

filed a pro se brief challenging his plea and sentence, and asserting that counsel was

ineffective. He has also moved for appointment of new counsel.

To the extent Julian challenges the voluntariness of his plea, we conclude that

argument is not cognizable on appeal, as Julian did not present it to the district court. 

See United States v. Washington, 515 F.3d 861, 864 (8th Cir. 2008) (explaining a

claim the plea was involuntarily or unknowingly entered is not cognizable on direct

appeal where defendant failed to present claim to district court by motion to withdraw

guilty plea). We also conclude Julian may not challenge his sentence on appeal

because he agreed to the district court’s imposition of the sentence. See United States

v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (“A defendant who explicitly and

voluntarily exposes himself to specific sentence may not challenge that punishment

on appeal.”). Finally, we decline to decide Julian’s claim that counsel was

ineffective, as this claim is best addressed in collateral proceedings. See United

States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006).

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

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel

leave to withdraw, deny Julian’s motion for new counsel, and affirm.

______________________________

-2-
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


February 17, 2016


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 223


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the series of Smart Trust set forth above (the “Trust”). We enclosed a list
of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such
Securities as of close of business on February 16, 2016, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the Standard Terms
and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing
the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-208402) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO
	 	Gerardo Cipriano
	 	Vice President
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

In re: WESTERN STATES

WHOLESALE NATURAL GAS

ANTITRUST LITIGATION,

SINCLAIR OIL CORPORATION,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ONEOK ENERGY SERVICES

COMPANY, L.P.,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 06-15950

D.C. No. CV-06-00282-PMP

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 5, 2010** 

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

FILED

APR 21 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 06-15950

Sinclair Oil Corporation appeals from the district court’s judgment

dismissing its action as barred by the Filed Rate Doctrine. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In light of defendant OneOK Energy Services

Company, L.P.’s agreement that this case should be remanded following E. & J.

Gallo Winery v. EnCana Corp., 503 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2007), we reverse and

remand.

As the parties agreed in an October 22, 2009 filing, they shall bear their own

costs on appeal.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.15 MB)

Tags:DLA Land & Maritime, dla, EVENT, People and Culture

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 747 

To grant exclusive fishery management authority over the red snapper fish 

in the Gulf of Mexico to certain States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 17, 2013 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To grant exclusive fishery management authority over the 

red snapper fish in the Gulf of Mexico to certain States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. 

4 In this Act: 

5 (1) GULF STATE.—The term ‘‘Gulf States’’ 

6 means the States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, 

7 Mississippi, and Texas. 

8 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

9 the Secretary of Commerce. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 747 IS

1 SEC. 2. FISHERY MANAGEMENT RIGHTS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), not 

3 later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 

4 Act, the Secretary shall grant to the Gulf States exclusive 

5 fishery management authority over the red snapper fish 

6 (lutjanus campechanus) in the Gulf of Mexico in the area 

7 located between the coast line of each Gulf State and the 

8 point that is 200 miles seaward of the coast line of each 

9 Gulf State, consistent with the jurisdictional limit of the 

10 exclusive economic zone. 

11 (b) AGREEMENT BETWEEN GOVERNORS.— 

12 (1) IN GENERAL.—The grant of authority 

13 under subsection (a) is contingent on the condition 

14 that not later than 180 days after the date on which 

15 the Secretary grants the authority, the Governors of 

16 each of the Gulf States— 

17 (A) agree on a fishery management plan 

18 governing management of the red snapper fish 

19 (lutjanus campechanus); and 

20 (B) certify in writing to the Secretary that 

21 the Governors have entered into that agree22 ment. 

23 (2) REVERSION.—If the Governors fail to enter 

24 into an agreement under paragraph (1), the authormstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•S 747 IS

1 ity granted to the Governors under subsection (a) 

2 shall revert to the Secretary. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

[LOGO OF KPMG APPEARS HERE]

                                                                    Exhibit 24.2
                                                                    ------------

                               CONSENT OF KPMG LLP

The Stockholders and Board of Directors
DiamondCluster International, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 333-88155, 333-92213, 333-50834 and 333-47830) on Form S-8 of
DiamondCluster International, Inc. of our reports dated May 1, 2001, relating
to the consolidated balance sheets of DiamondCluster International, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of March 31, 2000 and 2001, and the related consolidated
statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss), stockholders' equity,
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31,
2001 and the related schedule, which reports appear in the March 31, 2001 annual
report on Form 10-K of DiamondCluster International, Inc.



Chicago, Illinois
June 29, 2001





[LETTERHEAD OF KPMG APPEARS HERE]
#### William Clifford BARTLEY, Petitioner, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent.

No. 90SC263.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Oct. 22, 1990.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari GRANTED.

VOLLACK, J., does not participate.
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2... The trial court’s certification of Brown’s right to appeal states that this

“is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” 

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-412-CR

DANIEL KEITH BROWN APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant Daniel Keith Brown attempts to appeal his conviction for injury

to a child with intent to cause bodily injury. In accordance with a plea bargain,

the trial court sentenced Brown to two years’ deferred adjudication community

supervision.2 The trial court imposed Brown’s sentence on September 29,
3... Brown filed a pro se notice of appeal.

2

2008. Brown did not file a motion for new trial, so his notice of appeal was

due October 29, 2008, but was filed November 10, 2008.

3 See Tex. R. App.

P. 26.2(a) (requiring that notice of appeal be filed within thirty days after the

day sentence is imposed or within ninety days after the day sentence is

imposed if the defendant files a timely motion for new trial).

On November 14, 2008, we notified Brown’s trial counsel of the apparent

untimeliness of the notice of appeal and stated that we would dismiss the

appeal unless we received a response showing grounds for continuing the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. Brown’s counsel responded with a “Motion

to Withdraw as Counsel.” The motion did not address our November 14, 2008

letter.

A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of rule 26 is

essential to vest this court with jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a);

Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The Texas

Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly held that, without a timely filed notice

of appeal or motion for extension of time, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over

an appeal. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996);

see also Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210. Because Brown did not timely file his
3

notice of appeal, we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Olivo, 918

S.W.2d at 522.

Moreover, if the jurisdiction of a court of appeals is not properly invoked,

the power of the appellate court to act is as absent as if it did not exist. White

v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Therefore, because we

have no jurisdiction over this appeal, we do not consider Brown’s counsel’s

“Motion to Withdraw as Counsel.” See id.; Jackson v. State, No. 07-02-

00283-CR, 2004 WL 66773, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 15, 2004, no

pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: December 23, 2008
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1
 
                           SECURITY CAPITAL ATLANTIC
                                  INCORPORATED
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                         (DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                         1997    1996    1995    1994   1993(1)
                                        ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
<S>                                     <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>
Earnings from operations............... $51,115 $32,998 $19,639 $ 9,926  $ 38
Add:
  Interest expense.....................  20,292  16,181  19,042   9,240   --
                                        ------- ------- ------- -------  ----
Earnings, as adjusted.................. $71,407 $49,179 $38,681 $19,166  $ 38
                                        ======= ======= ======= =======  ====
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense..................... $20,292 $16,181 $19,042 $ 9,240  $--
  Capitalized interest.................  10,169  10,250   4,404     793   --
                                        ------- ------- ------- -------  ----
  Total fixed charges.................. $30,461 $26,431 $23,446 $10,033  $--
                                        ======= ======= ======= =======  ====
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges.....     2.3     1.9     1.6     1.9   N/A
                                        ======= ======= ======= =======  ====
</TABLE>
--------
(1) For the period from inception (October 26, 1993) to December 31, 1993.
#### John McPhillips, as Administrator of the Estate of Jean McPhillips, Deceased, Respondent-Appellant, v William Herzig, Appellant-Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), rendered April 11, 1990, which, upon a jury verdict, found in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $168,804.62, including interest, costs and disbursements, is unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, without *428costs or disbursements and the matter remanded for a new trial with respect to all issues.

Plaintiff commenced this medical malpractice action alleging that decedent’s injury resulted from defendant’s negligence in failing, *inter alia,*to conduct a proper pelvic examination. The decedent exhibited symptoms of severe abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting which defendant diagnosed as pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). Defendant prescribed an antibiotic. Upon experiencing continuing pain, decedent was admitted to a hospital six days later where she underwent emergency surgery for diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon which had perforated and caused peritonitis. Consequently, decedent had a colostomy. Although the colostomy could have been closed within three months, decedent continued using the colostomy bag until her death in July 1984 from an unrelated illness.

At the first trial, the jury’s award of damages in the sum $50,000 was set aside by the court, pursuant to plaintiff’s post-trial motion, on the ground of inadequacy. The court directed a new trial as to damages only.

However, the trial court, had improperly refused to charge mitigation to the first jury. Further, the special verdict rendered by the first jury was inconsistent, finding both that defendant was negligent in failing to do a pelvic examination and then responding "no” to the question; "Was defendant negligent in failing to make a correct diagnosis and institute appropriate treatment on April 22, 1980?”

During the course of the second trial, although the court properly charged the jury to consider whether there was any negligence on the part of decedent subsequent to the onset of the medical malpractice, it improperly told the second jury that the diagnosis and treatment were found to be negligent and at the same time improperly prevented the defendant from litigating causation and damages. We therefore reverse and direct a new trial *in toto*as to liability and damages. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.