alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 14043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05178]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Utility Broadband Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 28, 2022, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Utility Broadband Alliance, 
Inc. (``UBBA'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Redline Communications, Markham, Canada; Intel, Santa 
Clara, CA; Itron, Liberty Lake, WA; and Verizon, Basking Ridge, NJ, 
have been added as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and UBBA intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On May 4, 2021, UBBA filed its original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 10, 
2021 (86 FR 30981).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 20, 
2021. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on November 24, 2021 (86 FR 67083).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-05178 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
#### Cocoa Trading Corporation, Appellant, *v.*Bayway Terminal Corporation et al., Respondents.

Submitted May 17, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*Per Curiam.*

The primary question presented upon the appeal from the order denying the plaintiff’s motion to strike out as *“*sham ” the first affirmative defense contained in the answer was whether it *conclusively*appeared that the allegations of the defendant that the plaintiff had *“*duly assigned and transferred ” its cause of action and is no longer the *“*real party in interest ” are false and cannot possibly be sustained by any proof which may be produced. We considered and determined no other question. Until the facts are more fully disclosed the question cannot be determined whether the plaintiff is as matter of law the trustee of an express trust or for any other reason the *“*real party in interest ” within the meaning of the statute. (See 290 N. Y. 697.)

Motion denied.
NO. 07-04-0272-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	JUNE 3, 2004

	______________________________

	IN RE: DONNIE L. FOX, RELATOR

	_________________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Relator Donnie L. Fox seeks mandamus directed to respondent Eddie A. Pigg, Jr., Warden of the Marshall Formby Unit of the Texas Department of Corrections, requiring respondent and his agents to stop interfering with relator’s correspondence with his common-law wife and to refrain from taking actions in the future to prevent relator from seeking redress of complaints. 		

           Relator’s application for writ of mandamus does not seek to invoke this court’s appellate jurisdiction.  Nor does it assert that mandamus should issue (1) to protect the court’s jurisdiction, or (2) against a judge of or acting within the area comprising the seventh judicial appellate district.  Thus, we do not have jurisdiction to issue mandamus directed to respondent.  See Tex. Const. art. V, § 6; Tex. Gov’t. Code Ann. § 22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 1988 and Supp. 2004).  

	We dismiss for want of jurisdiction. 

							Phil Johnson

							Chief Justice
#### Joseph Johnson, Respondent *v.,*Edward Friel, Appellant.

Where one, under a contract with a municipal corporation, has made an excavation in a public street or highway, and refilled the same, it is his duty to know the natural qualities of earth thus thrown out and replaced (Z. *e.,*that it will shrink and settle when soaked with water), to anticipate the result upon it of a rain-fall, and to see that during and after a rain it is in a proper and safe condition, or to 'take such measures of prudent forethought as will protect the public passing, by from damage, and for neglect of this duty he is liable to the party injured.

(Argued November 22, 1872;

decided November 26, 1872.)

*680Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court of the second judicial department, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict and affirming an order denying a motion for a new trial. This antion was brought to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff’s horses and carriage, occasioned by driving into a hole in a street in the city of Brooklyn.

Defendant contracted with the city of Brooklyn to construct a sewer in Sixth avenue in that city. He had completed- the sewer a portion of the distance, filled in and repaved the trench and restored the surface of the street. This had been done at the point where the accident happened, some two weeks before the injury. The accident occurred about nine o’clock in the evening; it had rained hard all day, and the water washed out a hole where the earth had been thus replaced, about two feet deep and some six or seven feet long. Plaintiff’s horses and carriage, in attempting to cross Sixth avenue, fell into this hole and were injured. There were no guards or lights about the place. Defendant had a watchman, but the evidence tended, to show that about the time of the accident he was in a house two blocks off. Defendant’s counsel moved for a nonsuit upon the ground that no negligence was shown on the part of defendant. The motion was denied. He also requested the court to charge that if defendant left the work in a proper and safe condition, as it went along, that was all he was required to do. He was not obliged to finish the whole work before he was relieved from liability for this part of it. The court declined so to charge, but did charge that it was the defendant’s duty when he left the street to leave it, so far as human observation can go, in as safe a condition as he found it when he began to excavate the trench. Held, no error; that it was not enough that defendant left the work in a proper and safe condition for the time, but it was his duty to anticipate and provide for the natural effect of rains upon earth excavated and replaced, to see that during and after the rain it was in proper and safe condition, or that safeguards were placed about it, or watchmen kept near it, or such measure of prudent forethought adopted to prevent damage to the traveling public.

*681
      *John U. Bergen*for the appellant.

*George G. Reynolds*for the respondent.

Folg-er, J.,

reads opinion for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-60440

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HUBERT C. FUNCHESS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:93-CR-114WN-3

- - - - - - - - - -

August 5, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hubert C. Funchess appeals his convictions of conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute cocaine and use of a

communication facility in furtherance of a drug crime, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 843(b), 846. Funchess contends that

the district court erred by allowing the introduction of audio

tapes and testimony regarding other criminal acts, that the jury

verdict was not supported by the evidence, and that he received
No. 95-60440

- 2 -

ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Our review of the

record and the arguments and authorities convince us that no

reversible error was committed. The Government properly

authenticated the audio tapes. See United States v. Polk, 56

F.3d 613, 631 (5th Cir. 1995). The testimony of previous

criminal activity was intrinsic because it was "`inextricably

intertwined' with the evidence used to prove [the] crime[s]

charged." See United States v. Coleman, 78 F.3d 154, 156 (5th

Cir. 1996). The evidence was sufficient to prove the charged

crimes. See Polk, 56 F.3d 613, 628; United States v. Crain, 33

F.3d 480, 487-88 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1142

(1995); United States v. Gonzales-Rodriguez, 966 F.2d 918, 921

(5th Cir. 1992). This court may "resolve claims of

constitutional ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal

only in the rare case where the record permits a fair evaluation

of the merits of the claim." United States v. Crooks, 83 F.3d

103, 108 (5th Cir. 1996). Because the record before us does not

so permit, we decline to reach the merits of this claim. 

AFFIRMED.
#### Robert Lee JENKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ron BARNES, Warden, High Desert State Prison; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15674

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 24, 2017

*870Robert Lee Jenkins, Pro Se

Shanan L. Hewitt, Esquire, Attorney, Jesse Rivera & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *870*See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Robert Lee Jenkins appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under- 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Jenkins failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Miranda acted with deliberate indifference by changing Jenkins’s pain medication and discontinuing Jenkins’s authorization for a cane and back brace. *See id.*at 1058-60 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
-78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0

38.5 39.0 39.5 40.0



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/22 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 22 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
EXHIBIT 32.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, David K. Spohr, Vice President and Director of Fund Administration of the Managing Owner, Preferred
Investment Solutions Corp. (the Managing Owner), of Futures Strategic Trust (the Trust), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Trusts Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly
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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David K. Spohr                                
|David K. Spohr                                    
|Vice President and Director of Fund Administration
|August 14, 2006
Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350)



The undersigned, the Chief Executive
Officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



(a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 filed on the date hereof with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



/s/    WILLIAM J.
VELARDOWilliam J. VelardoChief Executive Officer, Mohegan Tribal Gaming AuthorityFebruary 14, 2006




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Authority and will be retained by the Authority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul Eduardo GARCIA-PINA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50026

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017 *

Filed July 3, 2017

Poonam G. Kumar, Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jonathan P. Schneller, Attorney, FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Los Angeles), Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Raul Eduardo Garcia-Pina appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing.

Garcia-Pina argues that the district court erred in denying a minor role reduction to his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). He argues that he is entitled to an adjustment under Amendment 794 (“the Amendment”), which added a non-exhaustive list of five factors that a court “should consider” in determining whether to grant a minor role reduction. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C). He asks this court to remand for the district court to grant the reduction or to conduct a resentencing under the Amendment. We agree that Garcia-Pina should be resen-tenced under the Amendment.

The Amendment became effective less than three months before Garcia-Pina was sentenced. Neither party explicitly discussed the Amendment at the sentencing hearing. Moreover, the district court did not acknowledge the Amendment or apply any of the five factors, nor did it conduct any comparative analysis between Garcia-Pina and his co-participants in the offense. On this record, we cannot determine whether the district court properly applied the amended minor role Guideline. Accordingly, we vacate Garcia-Pina’s sentence and remand for resentencing under the Amendment. *See United States v. Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d 519, 523-24 (9th Cir. 2016).

VACATED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 Annual Report of Power of the Dream Ventures, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Ildiko Rozsa, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1)
            the
      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended
      December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) 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, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








/s/
      Ildiko RozsaIldiko
      RozsaTitle:    Chief
      Financial Officer





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. A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0046 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0046

**2002/46/EC: Commission Decision of 21 January 2002 amending Decision 92/452/EEC as regards the lists of embryo collection teams and embryo production teams approved in third countries for export of bovine embryos to the Community (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2002) 84) **

*
Official Journal L 021 , 24/01/2002 P. 0021 - 0022 *

Commission Decision

of 21 January 2002

amending Decision 92/452/EEC as regards the lists of embryo collection teams and embryo production teams approved in third countries for export of bovine embryos to the Community

(notified under document number C(2002) 84)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2002/46/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 89/556/EEC of 25 September 1989 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and importation from third countries of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species(1), as last amended by Commission Decision 94/113/EC(2), and in particular Article 8 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The competent veterinary services of Canada and the United States have forwarded requests for addition and amendments to the list, established by Commission Decision 92/452/EEC(3), as last amended by Decision 2001/728/EC(4) of teams officially approved in their territories for the exports of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species to the Community.

(2) Guarantees regarding compliance with the requirements specified in Article 8 of Directive 89/556/EEC have been provided to the Commission by the competent veterinary services of the countries concerned, and the collection teams concerned have been officially approved for exports to the Community.

(3) Decision 92/452/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In the Annex to Commission Decision 92/452/EEC:

1. The following lines are added to the lines concerning Canadian teams:

>TABLE>

2. The lines concerning the Canadian team E 549 is replaced by the following:

>TABLE>

3. The line concerning the US team No 96IA086 E 608 is replaced by the following:

>TABLE>

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 January 2002.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 302, 19.10.1989, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 53, 24.2.1994, p. 53.

(3) OJ L 250, 29.8.1992, p. 40.

(4) OJ L 273, 16.10.2001, p. 24.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6633 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

9355 113th Street in Seminole, Florida, as the ‘‘Army SSG Ryan Christian Knauss Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 6, 2023 

Mrs. LUNA (for herself, Mr. WEBSTER of Florida, Mr. SCOTT FRANKLIN of 

Florida, Mr. STEUBE, Ms. SALAZAR, Mr. MAST, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. 

GIMENEZ, Mr. MOSKOWITZ, Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. RUTHERFORD, Mr. 

MILLS, Mr. WALTZ, Mr. DUNN of Florida, Mr. POSEY, Mr. BEAN of 

Florida, Mr. DONALDS, Mrs. CAMMACK, Mr. GAETZ, Ms. LEE of Florida, 

Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mrs. CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, 

Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida, Mr. SOTO, and Ms. WILSON of Florida) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 9355 113th Street in Seminole, Florida, as 

the ‘‘Army SSG Ryan Christian Knauss Memorial Post 

Office Building’’. 

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


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6633 IH

1 SECTION 1. ARMY SSG RYAN CHRISTIAN KNAUSS MEMO2 RIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 9355 113th Street in Seminole, 

5 Florida, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Army SSG 

6 Ryan Christian Knauss Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Army SSG Ryan 

11 Christian Knauss Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS