alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
 AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
 ACTION: Update listing of financial institutions in liquidation.
 SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in the 
                        **Federal Register**
                        ) may be relied upon as “of record” notice that the Corporation has been appointed receiver for purposes of the statement of policy published in the July 2, 1992 issue of the 
                        **Federal Register**
                         (57 FR 29491). For further information concerning the identification of any institutions which have been placed in liquidation, please visit the Corporation Web site at 
                        *www.fdic.gov/​bank/​individual/​failed/​banklist.html*
                         or contact the Manager of Receivership Oversight in the appropriate service center. Dated: February 27, 2012. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Pamela Johnson, Regulatory Editing Specialist.
 Institutions in Liquidation
[In alphabetical order]
FDIC Ref. No.
Bank name
City
State
Date closed10426
Central Bank of Georgia
Ellaville
GA
2/24/201210427
Home Savings of America
Little Falls
MN
2/24/2012


[FR Doc. 2012-5636 Filed 3-7-12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2164 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Triethylenediamine. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Triethylenediamine. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TRIETHYLENEDIAMINE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Triethylenediamine (CAS No. 

280–57–9) (provided for in 

subheading 2933.59.70) ........ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2164 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
The attachments contain the material used by the Rooms and Spaces Subcommittee in 

presenting their draft proposal provided for full committee review and comment during 

the fourth meeting of the Rail Vehicles Access Advisory Committee on September 11 

and 12, 2014. 

 Rooms and Spaces Subcommittee Draft Proposal

 Photo of Door Plate Between Two High Speed Rail Cars

The subcommittee also used three video clips. These clips are included in this 

“Supporting Documents” section under the title: 4th Meeting – Video Clips – Connection 

Between High Speed Rail Cars.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORTI**,**David M. Gandossi, Chief Financial Officer of Mercer International Inc. (the “Company”), certifypursuant to Section 906 of the *Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002*, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the*Securities Exchange Act of 1934*(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated:May 6, 2008     /s/ David M. Gandossi     David M. Gandossi  Chief Financial Officer A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to MercerInternational Inc. and will be retained by Mercer International Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY

Know all persons by these presents that the undersigned have made, constituted and appointed, and BY THESE PRESENTS make, constitute and appoint Gary S.
Holter, Kenneth Batko and Linda R. Witte, true and lawful ATTORNEYS for himself and in his name, place and stead to sign that certain Annual Report on Form 10-K, including all exhibits thereto,
which Form 10-K is to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about March 15, 2001, to be executed by the undersigned in his capacity as a Director of APAC Customer
Services, Inc., and to perform any and all other acts necessary in order to consummate such transaction, giving and granting unto Gary S. Holter, Kenneth Batko and Linda R. Witte, said
ATTORNEYS full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever, requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully, to all intents and purposes, as the
undersigned might or could do if personally present at the doing thereof, with full power of substitution and revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that Gary S. Holter, Kenneth Batko
and Linda R. Witte, said ATTORNEYS or their substitutes shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

| | /s/ Theodore S. Schwartz
/s/ Peter M. Leger
/s/ Clark E. McLeod
/s/ Thomas M. Collins
/s/ Robert F. Bernard
/s/ Paul G. Yovovich
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
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 Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. (the Company) for the period
ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Simon Pedder, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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 operations of the Company as of, and for, the
periods presented in the Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Simon PedderSimon PedderPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 4, 2010
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 of Maysia Resources Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Saleem Mohamed, Chief Executive Officer and 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) 	The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 10th day of May, 2006.



| | SALEEM MOHAMED                                     
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Saleem Mohamed                                     
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer













---
#### In the Matter of Kenneth Mickens, Petitioner, v New York State Employees’ Retirement System, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

The documentary evidence relied upon by the Comptroller in denying petitioner’s claim for accidental disability retirement benefits constituted substantial evidence to support the determination *(see, Matter of Odierno v Regan,*135 AD2d 898). To the extent that petitioner’s version of the facts differed from the information set forth in the documentary evidence, this merely presented a question of credibility which was for the Comptroller to resolve *(see, Matter of Hirsch v New York State Policemen’s & Firemen’s Retirement Sys.,*144 AD2d 196; *see also, Matter of Herrmann v Levitt,*68 AD2d 957). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and reject them as lacking in merit.

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Levine, Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.
**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 Majestic Oil & Gas Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick
      Montalban, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 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 Company.




/s/ Patrick
      Montalban


Chief
      Executive Officer


Chief
      Financial Officer




November
      10, 2008




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Majestic Oil & Gas, Inc. and will be retained by Majestic Oil & Gas,
      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6306

KENNETH KENNEDY SHANNON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

C. MICHAEL LAIRD; BRANDAN MCSHEEHY, Special Agent Drug 

Enforcement Agency (“DEA”); DAVID LESLIE, T.F.O.; CHRIS OKSALA, Group 

Supervisor, D.E.A.; SEAN MCMICKING, Special Agent D.E.A.; JAMES DUFFY, 

Special Agent D.E.A.; JAKE GRILL, City of Charleston Police Dept. T.F.O.; 

REARNY VANN, Dorchester County Sheriff’s Office T.F.O.; JONATHAN HOFF, 

City of Charleston Police Dept. T.F.O.; ROD RAPE, Special Agent D.E.A.; 

CHAUNCY SOLOMON, T.F.O.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:22-cv-04318-DCN)

Submitted: October 31, 2023 Decided: December 8, 2023

Before AGEE, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Kennedy Shannon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6306 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/08/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Kennedy Shannon appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Shannon’s civil rights

complaint. Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Shannon’s informal 

brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) 

(“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is 

limited to issues preserved in that brief.”), we find no reversible error.*

 Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s order. Shannon v. Laird, No. 2:22-cv-04318-DCN (D.S.C. 

Feb. 28, 2023; Mar. 9, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* To the extent Shannon challenges on appeal the characterization of his claims, he 

waived appellate review by failing to object to this aspect of the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation after being warned of the consequences of failing to file specific 

objections. See Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 

F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985).

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6306 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/08/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Aaron Keith ROBERTSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-83-206.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 4, 1983.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 1983.

Lee Card, Ardmore, for appellant.

Michael C. Turpén, Atty. Gen., Mary F. Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:

On appeal from a judgment and sentence rendered against him in Carter County District Court, Case No. CRF-81-159, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in vacating the order (deferring the judgment and sentence on his plea of guilty) entered over twenty (20) days after the State filed a motion to vacate the order deferring the judgment and sentence (more properly called a motion to accelerate deferred sentence).

The appellant correctly contends that the court’s order vacating the order deferring the sentence was entered over twenty (20) days after the District Attorney filed a motion to vacate the order deferring the judgment and sentence, but incorrectly argues that the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter said order under 22 O.S. 1981, § 991b.

Title 22 O.S.1981, § 991b provides in part:

> Whenever a sentence has been suspended by the court after conviction of a person for any crime, the suspended sen*136tence of said person may not be revoked, in whole or in part, for any cause unless a petition setting forth the grounds for such revocation is filed by the district attorney with the clerk of the sentencing court and competent evidence justifying the revocation of said suspended sentence is presented to the court at a hearing to be held for that purpose within twenty (20) days after the date of arrest.

From even the most cursory examination of Section 991b, it is readily apparent that the twenty (20) day requirement is limited to motions to *revoke.*Had the legislature desired deferred sentences to come under the twenty (20) day rule, as are suspended sentences, it could have so included them in the language of the statute. As Section 991b is totally void of the word “deferred,” this Court is compelled to interpret said statute as applicable entirely to *revocation*of *suspended*sentences.

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

CORNISH and BRETT, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 33.2[Regulus Letterhead]**Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria** 1. Pursuant to Subpart 229.1100 – Asset Backed Securities, 17 C.F.R. §§229.1100-229.1123(“Regulation AB”), Regulus Group LLC, for itself and its wholly-owned subsidiaries(individually and collectively “Regulus”), is responsible for assessing itscompliance with the servicing criteria applicable to the remittance processing services itprovides to customers who are issuers or servicers of asset backed securities transactionsand who have requested confirmation of Regulus’ compliance in connection with loan and/orreceivables portfolios that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions(the “Platform”). Remittance processing is a service whereby check payments thatare remitted by mail to a post office box are collected, processed through a highlyautomated data capture system, and prepared for deposit to the bank account held by thebeneficiary of the payment.  2. The servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB were used in Regulus’assessment of compliance. Regulus has concluded that the servicing criteria set forth inItems 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of Regulation AB are applicable to the servicingactivities it performs with respect to the Platform (such criteria the “ApplicableServicing Criteria”). Regulus has concluded that the remainder of the servicingcriteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB are inapplicable to the activities itperforms with respect to the Platform because Regulus does not participate in the servicingactivities referenced by such servicing criteria.  3. As of and for the year ending December 31, 2006, Regulus has complied in all materialrespects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB.  4. KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report onRegulus’ assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for theyear ending December 31, 2006. A copy of that attestation report is attached hereto asExhibit A.   /s/ Kimberlee Clark  Kimberlee Clark  Chief Financial Officer  February 22, 2007
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LIU ZHU ZHANG,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 13

- 73597

Agency No. A088

- 103

- 903

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 24, 2016 **

Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS , Circuit Judges.

Liu Zhu Zhang , a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convent ion Against Torture (“CAT”). We

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 6 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’ s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility

determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder

, 590 F.3d 1034,

1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies in Zhang’s testimony regarding his house church

attendance in China , inconsistencies between his testimony and documentary

evidence regarding his church attendance in the United States, and his non

responsive and evasive demeanor. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding

reasonable under the totality of the circumsta nces). I n the absence of credible

testimony, Zhang’ s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.

Ashcroft

, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, Zhang’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same evidence

that was found not c redible, and the record does not otherwise compel the

conclusion that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with consent or

acquiescence of the Chinese government

. See id. at 1156

- 57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Unassociated Document


    EXHIBIT
      10.1 

    


    COMPENSATION
      AGREEMENT

    


    This
      Compensation Agreement is dated as of December 22, 2006 between Fellows Energy
      Ltd., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and Marc J. Ross
      (“Consultant”).

    


    WHEREAS,
      the Company has requested the Consultant to provide the Company with legal
      services in connection with their business, and the Consultant has agreed to
      provide the Company with such legal services; and 

    


    WHEREAS,
      the Company wishes to compensate the Consultant with shares of its common stock
      for such services rendered; 

    


    NOW
      THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter stated, it
      is
      agreed as follows:

    


    1. The
      Company will issue up to 2,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, par
      value $.001 per share, to the Consultant subsequent to the filing of a
      registration statement on Form S-8 with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      registering such shares, as set forth in Section 2 below. The shares to be
      issued shall represent consideration for legal services to be performed by
      the
      Consultant on behalf of the Company.

    


    2. The
      above
      compensation shall be registered using a Form S-8. The Company shall file such
      Form S-8 with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 30 days of the
      execution of this agreement.

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, this Compensation Agreement has been executed by the Parties
      as
      of the date first above written.

     

     

    
      	 	FELLOWS ENERGY LTD. 	 
	 	 	 
	 	
              /s/ GEORGE S. YOUNG

              
                

              
George S. Young	 
	 	Chief Executive Officer	 
	 	 	 
	 	MARC
              J. ROSS	 
	 	 	 
	 	
               /s/
                MARC J. ROSS

              
                
Marc
                J. Ross
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135333 & (7) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. JIMMY L. THOMAS, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff, Justices 

v SC: 135333 

 AGC: 1161/05; 1162/05; 

 2227/05; 3103/05;

 0165/06; 1784/06;

 2305/06; 0260/07;

 0348/07; 2457/07 
 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The complaint for superintending control is considered, and relief is DENIED, because 

the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief. 

s0211 

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. 

February 19, 2008 

 Clerk