alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EMPOWER TEXANS, INC. &

MICHAEL QUINN SULLIVAN,

Appellants,

v.

TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00153

- CV

Appeal from the

345 th Court District Court

of Travis County, Texas

(TC# D

- 1

- GN

- 15

- 004455)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee

recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, see T EX .R.A PP .P. 43.5, for performance of the

judgment and all costs, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for

observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 12 TH DAY OF OCTOBER , 20 22

.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ , Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Coast Guard

          - 33 CFR Part 165
          - [Docket Number USCG-2013-0907]
          - RIN 1625-AA00

# AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Coast Guard published in the                         **Federal Register**                         of March 5, 2015, a final rule document making final an interim rule previously published at 79 FR 66622 on November 10, 2014. The March 5 final rule incorrectly cited the interim rule as published at 77 FR 75850 on December 26, 2012. This document corrects the citation and date in that final rule to correctly reflect the proper interim rule citation and effective date.                    

# DATES:

Effective on March 18, 2015.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Dan McQuate, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 270-442-1621, email                         *daniel.j.mcquate@uscg.mil.*                         If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Coast Guard published a document in the                     **Federal Register**                     of March 5, 2015 making an interim rule final as published. The citation to the interim rule was published incorrectly. This correction removes the incorrect citation and amendatory instruction for 33 CFR part 165.                

In rule FR Doc. 2015-03331 published on March 5, 2015 (80 FR 11885), make the following correction. On page 11887, in the third column, correct the last full paragraph of the document to read as follows: Accordingly, the interim rule amending 33 CFR part 165 that published at 79 FR 66622 on November 10, 2014, is adopted as a final rule without change.

Dated: March 12, 2015.

Katia Cervoni,

Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard.

[FR Doc. 2015-06174 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4272

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JIMMY LEE WILLIAMS, a/k/a Jimmy Lee Williamson, a/k/a J. J. 

Williamson, a/k/a Jimmy Williamson, a/k/a Jimmy C. Williamson, 

a/k/a Jimmy J. Williamson, a/k/a Jimmy L. Williamson, a/k/a 

Ayamawat Bidziil, a/k/a J. Edwards, a/k/a John Bruce, a/k/a 

Aaron Bruce,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief 

District Judge. (3:15-cr-00073-FDW-1)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carol Ann Bauer, Morganton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill 

Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Lee Williams pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the 

United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012), and money laundering and 

aiding and abetting money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) 

and 2 (2012). The district court sentenced Williams to a total of 

105 months’ imprisonment. Williams appeals, raising a single claim 

of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on 

the face of the record, ineffective assistance claims are not 

generally addressed on direct appeal. United States v. Benton, 

523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). Instead, such claims should be 

raised in a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in 

order to permit sufficient development of the record. United 

States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Because 

the record does not conclusively establish that counsel provided 

ineffective assistance to Williams, we conclude that this claim 

should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion.

Accordingly we affirm the judgment of the district court. We

deny Williams’ motion to file a pro se brief. See United States 

v. Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 569 n.1 (4th Cir. 2011). 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
REF --

ID:A40330 - -

.. ~], .. /~.,~~ ,4 

-~ ~.r;l-~ 

-----.----+-----..---.---~--------------- - -

-~-l--~~~~~-~+~,tW. 'fk ~UYJ ~ u..__ -

-.-~_J_,,,j~~..44~1V,, -~ ~-~ &i'.MAA'U. ,..., ~ ~ -

---.----1--.d~~__tg..JlZ....~~~ ~ 44L ~4?-?-o'L ___ _ 

~ ~ 9P~ ~~_e;.,-4 d' 7 ......,,.,,~1'4Y'"'~ ---.---!-'---· ~ ~- -<J1 ~~____$.. ~ -h-/,,,_...._/ 

I

I '""'-J ~--~---.~> ~ -- ----..-----1-·~~_J 

..I:> - ~~~~7-

~~ ~~ 

-d! ~ _...,.. :! 14~ 

-~--~~~~-~~~~--4~ 

-~ ~ 7 ?Ti~ ~d- ~~-fl'~ 

--,... ~ - - ~ ~-----4·'4- .J ¢~ .:&&_~ / -

~ 

-

---

~~~"'~~-~~ 

~ ~~~~--

72-

- ,-:.. --__ , tT / "' ~ ... 7~ .. ·~-~· 

- -

cr--r -

-

, I ----

I ._ 

I 

I 

- - -

I 

- - - -

I 

- - - - --- - --- -, 

I 

I ~............-- - -,r, ' 

-- - ----- --

- -- - - ' 

- - - -

la:ooroved for Release bv NSA on 09-26-2013 oursuant to E .0. 135211 

, 
... 

- -REF ID:A40330 

tJ Ji. I 

-;,, -

·---+--------- - - -

---.!-------Lt~~-~ ~-~~~_A., 

• .t'l&;f ?(.<, ..ere,,,/ ~b<M.! 1'?( -~,.,7 __ ,p_~-

.. ktd~J ~~?--?-~~~ - ""?=t:J~~~ -~---+--Je1d!~~~~~ ~ u~•-v ""'~ ~7a4 .. ~ - - -

-~----l--_,LJ£.,.~~~~'""1Uld.~-

---~~......J.~~~~~~~~~-~~~~ 

~ P""" ~ 

~ 

~~-~cl>~~,&,../~~ ------~--~~ /~ ~~ ;:2-

--~~ A~~~~~ 

~~'f at-jV~I~ ~~07 

-~~~dfA_ -

-~-..i--~~ ~ ~+' ~-/)~~~ 

----1--__.,a,,,.~.&..-...,.;p:z_..+,4.~__.d.;c:&a:___~~~t:b- - ~,....~ / 

--·!-------~~--~------

._...........~~~--~-1,~~t'----~~.~., ~- -

-~--~~,---~ l -~----,...----- - -- ~- - -

,~-----~-~-----

----+--#--

---------~ - - - - - - -- -

------t --~----------------- - - -

- - - ----+-----------.---~- ---·---

~----+------- -

---4---~-------- - -
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0145. ROBERT JAY DAVIS v. THE STATE.

In January 2014, a jury found Robert Jay Davis guilty of one count of

aggravated stalking, and the superior courtsentenced him to serve ten yearsin prison

as a recidivist. We affirmed his judgment of conviction in an unpublished opinion

on direct appeal. Davis v. State, No. A15A0305 (July 10, 2015). The Supreme Court

of Georgia thereafter denied Davis’s request for certiorari review, remitted the case

to this Court, and our remittitur issued to the superior court on November 6, 2015.

In the interim, Davis filed a motion to reduce sentence in the superior court in

October 2015. The superior court initially denied the motion on November 3, 2015. 

Davis appealed, and, in another unpublished opinion, we vacated and remanded on

the ground that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to rule on Davis’s motion before

our remittitur issued in his direct appeal. Davis v. State, No. A16A0838 (Aug. 18,

2016). On remand, the superior court again denied Davis’s motion, and he filed this

timely application for discretionary appeal.

Under OCGA § 17-10-1 (f), a court may modify a sentence during the year

after its imposition or within 120 days after remittitur following a direct appeal,

whichever is later. See Frazier v. State, 302 Ga. App. 346, 348 (691 SE2d 247)

(2010). The denial of a timely motion to modify under § 17-10-1 (f) is subject to

direct appeal. See Bowen v. State, 307 Ga. App. 204 (704 SE2d 436) (2010);

Anderson v. State, 290 Ga. App. 890 (660 SE2d 876) (2008); Maldonado v. State, 260

Ga. App. 580 (580 SE2d 330) (2003). Davis’s motion was timely under § 17-10-1

(f), as it was filed within 120 days of our remittitur following his direct appeal.

November 15, 2016
Under OCGA § 5-6-35 (j), this Court will grant a timely discretionary

application if the lower court’s order is subject to direct appeal. Accordingly, this

application is hereby GRANTED. Davis shall have ten days from the date of this

order to file a notice of appeal with the superior court, if he has not already done so. 

The clerk of the superior court is DIRECTED to include a copy of this order in the

record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/15/2016
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Electro-Sensors, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Bradley D. Slye, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| November 14, 2008 | /s/ Bradley D. Slye                                 |
|-------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|              |                                                | Bradley D. Slye |
|              | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
Document Headings

                    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 Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 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 April 2, 2015.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

                    1.                     *Georgia A. Gross,*                     Roseburg, Oregon, acting in concert with the Gross Family; to acquire voting shares of Commercial Bancorp, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Farmers State Bank, both in Pine Bluffs, Wyoming.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 13, 2015.

Michael J. Lewandowski,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2015-06198 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE §1350**

 

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge thequarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended March 31, 2006 ofAllstate Life Insurance Company filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in suchreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of Allstate Life Insurance Company.

 
| May 8, 2006 | /s/ Casey J. Sylla                                 |   |
|-------------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|        | Casey J. Sylla                                     |
|        | Chairman of the Board and President                |
|        |                                               |
|        | /s/ John C. Pintozzi                               |   |
|        | John C. Pintozzi                                   |
|        | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |
|             |                                                    |        |  |

 

E-5

----
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

Center for Strategic Management 

Under Contract No. N00140-05-D-0012 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60580 

Joseph G. Billings, Esq. 

Emily A. Higgs, Esq. 

Miles & Stockbridge P.C. 

Baltimore, MD 

Ronald J. Borro, Esq. 

Navy Chief Trial Attorney 

Stephanie Beaty, Esq. 

Assistant Counsel 

Philadelphia, PA 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PROUTY 

It is the Board's decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7105(b), and the 

parties' stipulation and agreement that the appeal is sustained. In the nature of a consent 

judgment, the Board makes a monetary award to the appellant in the amount of $118,000. 

This amount is inclusive of Contract Disputes Act interest. No other interest shall be paid. 

Dated: 22 November 2016 

I concur 

~~~ Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

Administrative 

J~ Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60580, Appeal of Center for 

Strategic Management, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.2

                                  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 of North Fork Bancorporation, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission of the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Daniel M. Healy, 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, to the best of my knowledge:

         (3)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/  Daniel M. Healy
--------------------
Daniel M. Healy
Chief Financial Officer

November 14, 2002


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
DEBORAH LAWS,

Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-4627

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 9, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

Gene D. Brown, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Kimberly S. Mello and Robert Schneider of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tampa. 

Michele L. Stocker of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0506. STANLEY EUGENE ASHMORE v. THE STATE.

In 2009, Stanley Eugene Ashmore was found guilty of aggravated assault and

aggravated battery. The trial court imposed a 20-year sentence on the aggravated

assault conviction and a consecutive 20-year sentence on the aggravated battery

conviction. In August 2016, Ashmore filed a motion to vacate or correct void

sentence, which the trial court denied. We lack jurisdiction.

A direct appeal may lie from an order denying a motion to vacate or correct a

void sentence only if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in

fact, void. See Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 217, n. 1 (686 SE2d 786) (2009); Burg

v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). “Motions to vacate a void

sentence generally are limited to claims that – even assuming the existence and

validity of the conviction for which the sentence was imposed – the law does not

authorize thatsentence, most typically because it exceedsthe mostsevere punishment

for which the applicable penal statute provides.” von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569,

572 (2) (748 SE2d 446) (2013). When a sentence is within the statutory range of

punishment, it is not void. Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669, 670 (604 SE2d 483) (2004).

Ashmore argues in his motion to vacate or correct void sentence that the trial

court lacked the authority to impose the sentence on his aggravated battery conviction

because that conviction should have merged into his aggravated assault conviction. 

Ashmore’s merger claim is a challenge to his convictions, and not his sentences, and

thus does not state a valid void-sentence claim. See Williams v. State, 287 Ga. 192,

193-194 (695 SE2d 244) (2010).

Because Ashmore has not raised a valid void-sentence claim, we lack

November 10, 2016
jurisdiction to consider his appeal. See Harper, 286 Ga. at 218 (2). Moreover, to the

extent that Ashmore’s motion could be construed as seeking to vacate or modify his

convictions, “a petition to vacate or modify a judgment of conviction is not an

appropriate remedy in a criminal case,” id. at 218 (1), and any appeal from an order

denying or dismissing such a motion must be dismissed, see id. at 218 (2); see also

Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010).

For these reasons, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/10/2016
EEANY Achievabilty of MACT Floor Limits for Oil-Fired Units 

Roger Caiazza 

to: Bill Maxwell 

06/09/2011 09:05 PM 

Cc: Barrett Parker/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul Versace/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, 

RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Alessi, Robert J." 

<RAlessi@deweyleboeuf.com>, <bbeaudin@ppmsllc.com>, 

<cathy.waxman@us.ngrid.com>, "Clark, Carol" 

<clclark@deweyleboeuf.com>, "Coates, Tom" <Tom.Coates@nrgenergy.com>, 

"Dessen, Eric M. - Regulatory" <DESSENE@coned.com>, "Gregory Pryor" 

<gregory_pryor@transcanada.com>, <guastafestea@coned.com>, 

<johnholsapple@hotmail.com>, "Joseph Brown" 

<joseph_brown@transcanada.com>, "Kahabka, John" 

<John.Kahabka@nypa.gov>, "Kallner, Angie" <AKallner@deweyleboeuf.com>, 

"Karlic, Cindy" <Cynthia.Karlic@nrgenergy.com>, "Konary, Shawn" 

<shawn.konary@mirant.com>, "Kuhn, Jeffrey" <JKuhn@deweyleboeuf.com>, 

<lorna_lynum@transcanada.com>, "Martin, George J." 

<George.Martin@us.ngrid.com>, "Matura, Andrew D" 

<Andrew.D.Matura@dynegy.com>, "Mclean, Mark L" 

<Mark.L.McLean@dynegy.com>, "Osinski, John" <John.Osinski@nypa.gov>, 

<rao.k@nypa.gov>, <robert.teetz@us.ngrid.com>, "Schroeder, Kevin" 

<Kevin.Schroeder@nrgenergy.com>, <sladew@coned.com>, "Sullivan, Linda 

D." <Linda.Sullivan@us.ngrid.com> 

Bill, 

Here is the presentation power point that I will use tomorrow and updates 

to the comment and its documentation. 

Talk to you tomorrow at 10:00. 

Roger Caiazza 

Environmental Energy Alliance of New York 

7679 Bay Cir 

Liverpool, NY 13090 

Roger.Caiazza@gmail.com 

(315) 529-6711 EEANY cell 

Attachment 1 Statgraphics Analysis 

of Oil-Firing MACT Floor 06 09 2011.pdf 

Achievability of Proposed Oil-Fired MACT Limits.pdf 

Achievability of MACT Proposed Oil-Fired Limits.pdf 

Total Metals HF HCl limits analysis.xlsx 

SG Floor Analysis Input data 031611.xlsx
DlT 2) JILL/og 

rooa 3616 

REF ID:A67644e 

' 

DBPARTllBH'l OP CODEROI 

Paper llo. 13 

Unl•ed states Paten,·ottlo• 

Waahington, D.£. 

In re applloatlon ot : 

• • 

IILLIAll •· l'RISJllAR : Rfi!IOI fO RBVIR 

Serlal lo. 551172 I 

J'1le4 .&ugua' 25,_ 19411- : 

roa: AtmllHICA'lIBG DIWIOB : 

BDllIIER'S SfA!Elllft 

The abon noted appl1cat1oa beoaae abandone4 

on Pe'bPuarr 4, 1941 beoauae of applloant • • ta11m~e to 

respond to the Ott1o• aott.on aa'ec!. PebraarJ 3. 1945. 'fi~ 

pe'tlt1on la aocollp&ft1ad 'bJ' an amendment whloh la reepona1Ye 

but doe• not place the eaae 1n cond1,1on tore allowance. 

!be petition and statements of ooaaael .are Yerltled. 

Exaa1ner 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 09-06-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a