alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 14368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5756]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than March 26, 2012.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice 
President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. Bixby Bridge Financial, LP and David D. Colburn, as general 
partner, both of Northbrook, Illinois; to collectively acquire voting 
shares of PCNB Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting 
shares of Peoples Community Bank, both in Bremen, Georgia.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Mary Ann Haywood, Bayton, Texas; to become Trustee of the Mary 
Louise Greak Estate, and acquire control of First Liberty National 
Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire control of First 
Liberty National Bank, both in Liberty, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 6, 2012.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2012-5756 Filed 3-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with thequarterly report of Reef Global Energy VI, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel C. Sibley, ChiefFinancial Officer of Reef Oil & Gas Partners, L.P., the managinggeneral partner of Reef Global Energy VII, L.P., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of thePartnership.

 
| Date: May 30,  2006 | /s/ Dan Sibley                          |   |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                     | Daniel C. Sibley                        |
|                     | Chief Financial  Officer                |
|                     | Reef Oil &  Gas Partners, L.P. |

 

Thiscertification is not deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of thatsection. This certification is not deemed to be incorporated by reference inany filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of1934, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it byreference.

 

1

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-18-00939-CV

Cathy Cancel MALAVE,

Appellant

v.

Alberto MALAVE,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI11207

Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 16, 2019

DISMISSED

Appellant Cathy Malave filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion states the trial 

court granted her motion for new trial, and her appeal is moot. 

Absent a final order, we lack jurisdiction in this appeal. Appellant’s motion to dismiss this 

appeal is granted; this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2), 42.3(a), 43.2(f); 

Caballero v. Heart of Tex. Pizza, L.L.C., 70 S.W.3d 180, 181 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no 

pet.) (en banc) (per curiam).

PER CURIAM
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE October 5, 2000 Se ssion
TIP AND BARBARA TERRY v. SCOTT BOTTS Appeal from the Juvenile Court for Scott County No. 8642 Michael A. Davis, Judge FILED FEBRUARY 22, 2001
No. E2000-01288-COA-R3-CV

C HARLES D. S USANO , J R ., J., concur ring.

I concur fully in the majority opinion’s holding that the Scott County Juvenile Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the appellees’ petition to establish grandparent

visi tatio n. In view of this holding, I

do not believe that

it is appropriate t

o discuss the propriety of the trial court’s determination

– as expressed in the language of the majority opinion – “that a substantial danger of harm existed as to all three of these children should they be prohi bited from v

isiting with their grandparents.”

In addressing the substance of thi s finding, the maj ority opinion seems to tacitly acknowledge that the statutory definition of “substantial harm to the child” as set forth in T.C.A. § 36-6-306(b)(1)

(A)-(C) and as furthe r explain ed in Subsection (b )(2) of T.C.A. § 36

-6-306 is a constitutionally

-valid predicate for the application o f the “best interests” test pursuant to the provisions of T.C.A. § 36-6-307. I have some doubts regarding this conclusion , doubts that are engendered

by my reading of

Hawk v. Hawk , 855 S.W.2d 573 (Tenn. 1993) and its

progeny. In any event, that question is not b efore us in this ca

se and I expre

ss no firm opinion as to wh ether these particular statutory provisions are compatible with the Tennessee Constitution.

___________________________________ CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1967 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1967

   To extend the suspension of duty on formulations of thiamethoxam, 
              difenoconazole, fludioxonil, and mefenoxam.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 28, 2009

   Mr. Crapo introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the suspension of duty on formulations of thiamethoxam, 
              difenoconazole, fludioxonil, and mefenoxam.

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

SECTION 1. FORMULATIONS OF THIAMETHOXAM, DIFENOCONAZOLE, FLUDIOXONIL, 
              AND MEFENOXAM.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.13.31 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to formulations of 
Thiamethoxam, Difenoconazole, Fludioxonil, and Mefenoxam) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2006169EN.01001301.xml

| 22.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 169/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 169/13

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 916/2006

of 21 June 2006

determining the extent to which applications for import rights lodged in respect of the quota for frozen meat of bovine animals, provided for in Regulation (EC) No 704/2006, can be accepted

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 704/2006 of 8 May 2006 opening and providing for the administration of a tariff quota for frozen meat of bovine animals covered by CN code 0202 and products covered by CN code 0206 29 91 (1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007) (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,

Whereas:

Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 704/2006 fixes at 53 000 tonnes the quantity of the quota in respect of which Community importers can lodge an application for import rights based on the quantities of beef falling under CN code 0201, 0202, 0206 10 95 or 0206 29 91 imported by him/her or on his/her account under the relevant customs provisions, between 1 May 2005 and 30 April 2006. As the import rights applied for exceed the available quantity referred to in Article 1, a reduction coefficient should be fixed in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 704/2006,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Each application for import rights lodged in accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 704/2006 shall be accepted at a rate of 13,474095 % of the import rights applied for.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 22 June 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 June 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1899/2004 (OJ L 328, 31.10.2004, p. 67).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 122, 9.5.2006, p. 8.

2

---
(May 30, 1991)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Pastor Ortiz, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Murray Mogel, J.), rendered on April 10, 1989, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 3 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and *403agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 15113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6162]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel Small Business Grant Applications: Immunology.
    Date: March 23, 2012.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Handlery Union Square Hotel, 351 Geary Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94102.
    Contact Person: Stephen M. Nigida, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4212, MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301-435-1222, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e48a8d838d808597a4879796ca8a8d8cca838b92"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="731d1a141a171200331000015d1d1a1b5d141c05">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel Global Health: Innovative Training Programs.
    Date: April 2, 2012.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Malgorzata Klosek, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4188, MSC 7849, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 435-2211, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ec8780839f898781ac8f9f9ec2828584c28b839a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cfa4a3a0bcaaa4a28facbcbde1a1a6a7e1a8a0b9">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 8, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-6162 Filed 3-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-11895

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BILLIE HAROLD MCDUFFIE, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 6:22-cr-00171-WWB-EJK-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 24-11895 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 09/20/2024 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 24-11895

Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to 

the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. See 

United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1345, 1350–51 (11th Cir. 

1993) (holding that we will enforce sentence appeal waivers if they 

are made “knowingly and voluntarily”); United States v. Boyd, 

975 F.3d 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2020) (noting that the “touchstone” 

for assessing if a sentence appeal waiver was made knowingly and 

voluntarily is whether it was clearly conveyed to the defendant that 

he was giving up his right to appeal under most circumstances); 

United States v. Howle, 166 F.3d 1166, 1169 (11th Cir. 1999) (explaining that an appeal waiver may include a waiver to appeal difficult 

legal issues, debatable legal issues, or even blatant error); United 

States v. Bascomb, 451 F.3d 1292, 1296-97 (11th Cir. 2006) (stating 

that a “vigorous” dispute during sentencing does not preserve that 

issue for appeal when it does not fall under an exception to the appeal waiver). 

USCA11 Case: 24-11895 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 09/20/2024 Page: 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AgFeed Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Edward Pazdro, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(1)
The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated:  May 10, 2011
By:
/s/ Edward PazdroEdward PazdroChief Financial Officer





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
March 29, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

AMERICAN DISCOVERY E NERGY, INC. , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00158

- CV V.

APACHE CORPORATION , Appellee

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, APACHE
CORPORATION , signed September 1, 2010, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment
of the court below AFFIRMED

.
We order appellant, AMERICAN DISCOVERY EN ERGY, INC., to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.15

December 21, 2006

Mr. Robert B. McKnight, Jr.
Quiksilver, Inc.
15202 Graham Street
Huntington Beach, California
92649

     RE: AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

Dear Bob:

Reference is made to your Employment Agreement ("Agreement") dated May 25, 2005
by and between Quiksilver, Inc. ("Quiksilver") and you. Capitalized terms used
in this letter and not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in
the Agreement.

This letter amends the Agreement as follows:

1.   The parties agree to add clause 9(e) to the Agreement as follows:

"(e) Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the Company reasonably
determines that any payment or benefit under this Agreement is subject to
Section 409A of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, such payment or benefit shall be
made at such times and in such forms as the Company reasonably determines are
required to comply with Code Section 409A (including, without limitation, in the
case of a "specified employee" within the meaning of Code Section 409A, any
payments that would otherwise be made during the six-month period following
separation of service will be paid in a lump sum after the end of the six-month
period) and the Treasury Regulations and the transitional relief thereunder;
provided, however, that in no event will the Company be required to provide you
with any additional payment or benefit in the event that any of your payments or
benefits trigger additional income tax under Code Section 409A or in the event
that the Company changes the time or form of your payments or benefits in
accordance with this paragraph."

Except as expressly amended by this letter, the terms, conditions, covenants and
agreements contained in the Agreement remain unaffected by this letter and
continue in full force and effect. This letter is intended by the parties to
satisfy the requirement in clause 13 of the Agreement that any modification or
amendment to the Agreement be in writing and signed by both parties. Further,
this letter and the Agreement constitute the entire agreement between the
parties with respect to the subject matter set forth herein and therein and
supercede all other agreements, proposals, oral or written statements. Please
confirm your agreement by signing and returning one copy of this letter to the
undersigned, whereupon this letter will become a binding agreement between the
parties.

Very truly yours,


By:
    ---------------------------------
Name: Charles Exon
Title: Secretary and General Counsel
       Executive Vice President
       Business and Legal Affairs -
       International

Accepted and agreed to this ____ day of ____________, 2006


By:
   ----------------------------------
Name: Robert B. McKnight, Jr.
Title: Chairman and Chief Executive
       Officer
#### In the Matter of Gary E. Bogle, Appellant, v Thomas A. Coughlin III, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered September 11, 1990 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul Directive 4933 of the Department of Correctional Services.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging Directive 4933 of the Department of Correctional Services (7 NYCRR ch VI) as being violative of his right to due process under the US and NY Constitutions. Initially, we find that petitioner’s application is legally insufficient because it contains only vague and conclusory allegations without any underlying support establishing how he was deprived of anything *(see, Matter of Barnes v LaVallee,*39 NY2d 721, 722-723; *Matter of Malik v Berlinland,*158 AD2d 836, *lv denied*76 NY2d 704). Even if we were to consider the petition, this court has recently upheld *993the constitutionality of this directive *(Matter of Malik v Coughlin,*157 AD2d 961). In any event, the daily review of deprivation orders (7 NYCRR 305.2 [c]), the availability of the inmate grievance program (7 NYCRR 304.14) and the fact that an inmate has a judicial remedy to challenge deprivation orders under CPLR article 78 clearly provide due process of law.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.