alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Workbook Contents

U.S. Fuel Ethanol (Renewable) Imports

Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data

Worksheet Name Description # Of Series Frequency Latest Data for

Data 1 U.S. Fuel Ethanol (Renewable) Imports 20 Annual 2014

Release Date: 4/29/2015

Next Release Date: 8/28/2015

Excel File Name: pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epooxe_im0_mbbl_a.xls

Available from Web Page: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epooxe_im0_mbbl_a.htm

Source: Energy Information Administration

For Help, Contact: infoctr@eia.gov

(202) 586-8800 4/23/2015 6:09:29 PM
Back to Contents Data 1: U.S. Fuel Ethanol (Renewable) Imports

Sourcekey MFEIMUS1

Date

U.S. Imports of Fuel 

Ethanol (Thousand 

Barrels)

Mill gal - All 

countries

Mill gal - All except 

Brazil Mill gal : CBI

All Brazillian ethanol 

Mill gal : CBI + 

CAFTA

2000 116 5 5 0 0

2001 315 13 13 0 0

2002 306 13 13 0 0

2003 292 12 12 0 0

2004 3542 149 6 117 143

2005 3234 136 3 77 133

2006 17408 731 50 560 681

2007 10457 439 12 310 427

2008 12610 530 6 417 523

2009 4720 198 11 143 187

2010 373 16 13 2 2

2011 4092 172 2 158 170

2012 11765 494 8 444 486

2013 8976 377 5 336 372

2014 1721 72 8 53 64
Sourcekey MFEIM_NUS-NBR_1 MFEIM_NUS-NCS_1 MFEIM_NUS-NES_1

M_EPOOXE_IM0_NUSNGT_MBBL MFEIM_NUS-NJM_1 MFEIM_NUS-NNU_1 MFEIM_NUS-NTD_1 MFEIM_NUS-NVQ_1

Date

U.S. Imports from 

Brazil of Fuel 

Ethanol (Thousand 

Barrels)

U.S. Imports from 

Costa Rica of Fuel 

Ethanol (Thousand 

Barrels)

U.S. Imports from El 

Salvador of Fuel 

Ethanol (Thousand 

Barrels)

U.S. Imports from 

Guatemala of Fuel 

Ethanol (Thousand 

Barrels)

U.S. Imports from 

Jamaica of Fuel 

Ethanol (Thousand 

Barrels)

U.S. Imports from 

Nicaragua of Fuel 

Ethanol (Thousand 

Barrels)

U.S. Imports from 

Trinidad and Tobago 

of Fuel Ethanol 

(Thousand Barrels)

U.S. Imports from 

Virgin Islands of Fuel 

Ethanol (Thousand 

Barrels)

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004 2052 491 128 723

2005 822 753 563 810 209

2006 10783 769 2108 1898 648

2007 4403 1056 1730 1771 1156 62

2008 4835 872 1667 2351 1559 1177

2009 125 270 786 2164 1021 87

2010 59

2011 2399 293 577 776

2012 9625 216 594 118 954 65

2013 7665 491 365 326

2014 1271 241 19
**Exhibit 21**

 

**FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC.**

**Listing of Active Corporationsand other Entities**

 

**Family Dollar Stores, Inc.**

**Family Dollar, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Holdings, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Services, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Operations, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Trucking, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Merchandising, L.P.**

**Family Dollar Distribution, L.P.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Colorado, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Connecticut, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Delaware, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of D.C., Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Florida, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Georgia, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Indiana, L.P.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Iowa, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Kentucky, Ltd.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Maryland, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Massachusetts, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Michigan, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Missouri, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of New Jersey, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of New Mexico, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of New York, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of North Carolina, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Ohio, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Oklahoma, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Pennsylvania, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Rhode Island, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of South Carolina, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of South Dakota, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Texas, L.P.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Vermont, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Virginia, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of West Virginia, Inc.**

**Family Dollar Stores of Wisconsin, Inc.**

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7463

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. RUSSELL SHIFLETT, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00252-JFM-1; 1:08-cv-00499-JFM)

Submitted: January 29, 2009 Decided: February 19, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Russell Shiflett, Appellant Pro Se. Kwame Jangha Manley, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Russell Shiflett seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El

v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shiflett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts

(Continued) * The district court rejected Shiflett’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims upon the reasoning that they could not be litigated in a § 2255 proceeding because they had been raised on direct appeal and denied. While it is correct that Shiflett raised these claims on direct appeal, we explicitly declined to consider them, noting that ineffective assistance of counsel claims should ordinarily be pursued in post-conviction proceedings. Nevertheless, we find it unnecessary to remand

23 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

these claims to the district court for plenary consideration as our review of the record leaves us with no doubt that Shiflett’s contentions that his trial attorney was ineffective are insubstantial.
No. 10-1341.

No. 10-1346.

#### UPMC, Petitioner v. West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc. Highmark, Inc., Petitioner v. West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc.

565 U.S. 817, 132 S. Ct. 98,

181 L. Ed. 2d 26,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6650.

October 3, 2011.

Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same cases below, 627 F.3d 85.
No. 10-10565.

#### Jesus Perez Saldana, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

565 U.S. 840, 132 S. Ct. 151,

181 L. Ed. 2d 68,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6118,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 11-5318.

#### Raymond Cazares, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

565 U.S. 901, 132 S. Ct. 296,

181 L. Ed. 2d 180,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5386.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
TYPED NAME AND TITLE AND SIGNATURE

FOR DSO UI COORDINATOR ACTION

TO:

REQUEST FOR UNIT OF ISSUE CHANGE

ROUTING

1. TO:

DATE

INITIALS

 

EXTENSION

TO:

DATE

INITIALS

 

EXTENSION

TO:

DATE

INITIALS

 

EXTENSION

DATE

INITIALS

 

EXTENSION

TO:

DATE

INITIALS

 

EXTENSION

2. NSN 3. ORIGINATOR (Typed name and signature) 4. OFFICE SYMBOL 5. EXT. 6. DATE

7. ORIGINATOR'S JUSTIFICATION AND UI ASSIGNMENT CRITERION ("X" One): 1 2 3 4 5 6

PRESENT

8. UI 9. STANDARD PRICE 10. QUP 11. Q/E (If Nondefinitive) 12. CONVERSION FACTOR 13. CONVERSION RATIO

PROPOSED 18. MILITARY USERS (Activity Codes)

14. UI 15. STANDARD PRICE 16. QUP 17. Q/E (If Nondefinitive)

19. ITEM NAME AND DESCRIPTION

20. APPROVED DISAPPROVED (Indicate reasons in this space)

21. TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE 22. OFFICE SYMBOL 23. EXTENSION 24. DATE

25. TO (Military User): 26. DATE OF FORWARDING LETTER

ARMY NAVY AIR FORCE MARINE CORPS

FOR COORDINATION WITH MILITARY USERS

CONCUR NONCONCUR (Indicate reasons in this space)

OFFICE SYMBOL TELEPHONE NO. DATE

DLA FORM 1359, FEB 74 (EG) REPLACES ALL SIMILAR PURPOSE LOCAL FORMS WHICH ARE OBSOLETE PDF (DLA)
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Federal Screw Works (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual Report"),
I, Thomas ZurSchmiede, Jr., President and Chief Executive 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 Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

December 6, 2004

                                 /s/ Thomas ZurSchmiede
                                 ----------------------------------------------
                                 Thomas ZurSchmiede, President and Chief
                                 Executive Officer of Federal Screw Works
No. 11-5355.

#### Ernest Richardson, Jr., Petitioner v. South Carolina.

565 U.S. 903, 132 S. Ct. 301,

181 L. Ed. 2d 183,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5477.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 426 Fed. Appx. 201.
No. 11-5274.

#### Verlaine Joren, Petitioner v. Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security.

565 U.S. 898, 132 S. Ct. 290,

181 L. Ed. 2d 175,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5694.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 633 F.3d 1144.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3150 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for interest-free 

deferment on student loans for borrowers serving in certain medical 

or dental internships or residency programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 5, 2019 

Mr. WATKINS (for himself and Mrs. LEE of Nevada) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide 

for interest-free deferment on student loans for borrowers serving in certain medical or dental internships 

or residency programs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural and Underserved 

5 Residencies to Attract Long-term Physicians Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘RURAL Physicians Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3150 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEFERMENT DURING A MEDICAL OR DENTAL IN2 TERNSHIP OR RESIDENCY PROGRAM. 

3 Section 455(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

4 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(f)) is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding 

6 subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘A borrower’’ and in7 serting ‘‘Except as provided in paragraph (6), a bor8 rower’’; 

9 (2) in paragraph (2)(A)— 

10 (A) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause 

11 (i); 

12 (B) by striking the matter following clause 

13 (ii); 

14 (C) in clause (ii), by striking the comma at 

15 the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

16 (D) by adding at the end the following: 

17 ‘‘(iii) is serving in a medical or dental 

18 internship or residency program that— 

19 ‘‘(I) at the beginning of such 

20 service is in— 

21 ‘‘(aa) a health professional 

22 shortage area designated under 

23 section 332 of the Public Health 

24 Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254e); or 

25 ‘‘(bb) a medical facility lo26 cated in a census tract with a 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 3150 IH

1 Rural Urban Commuting Area 

2 code 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10; or 

3 ‘‘(II) is in a medical facility of 

4 the Department of Veterans Affairs;’’; 

5 and 

6 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(6) SPECIAL RULE FOR CERTAIN IN SCHOOL

8 DEFERMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision 

9 of this Act, a borrower described in paragraph 

10 (2)(A)(iii) shall be eligible for a deferment, during 

11 which periodic installments of principal need not be 

12 paid and interest shall not accrue on any loan made 

13 to the borrower under this part.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 24

- 00185

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.D. , a Child

From the 407th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019

- PA

- 00958

Honorable Kevin Henderson , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Costs of appeal are not assessed against appellant because he qualifies as indigent.

SIGNED September 13, 2024.

_____________________________ Irene Rios, Justice
No. 10-6369.

#### In re Jeffrey Sanders, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1173, 131 S. Ct. 988,

178 L. Ed. 2d 817,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 195.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 1043, 131 S. Ct. 601, 178 L. Ed. 2d 455, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8890.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 17 - 00080 - CR

JOHNNY SKIPPER MATTH EWS APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COUR T OF HOOD COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. CR13 450

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- A jury found Appellant Johnny Skipper Matthews guilty of one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child and three counts of indecency with a child by contact

. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021 (West Supp. 201 7 ), § 2 1 .11 (West Supp. 2017 ). The jury assessed Matthews’s punishment at twenty years’ confinem ent on the singl e count of aggravated sexual assault of a child and at

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

ten years’ confinement on each of the three counts of indecency with a child by
contact

. The trial court sentenced Matthews in accordance with the jury’s
recommendation and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Matthews timely perfected this appeal. Matthews’s court
- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of And ers v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). In compliance with Kelly v. State , counsel notified Matthews of his motion to wit hdraw, provided him a copy of the brief, informed him of his right to file a pro se response, informed him of his pro se right to seek discretionary review should this court hold the appeal is frivolous, and took concrete measures to facilitate Matthews’s review of the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Although given the opportunity , Matthews did not file a response on his own behalf, and the State did not file a brief. As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Onl y then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).3

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that arguably might support an appeal

. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment s

.

/s/ Sue Walker SUE WALKER JUSTICE
PAN EL: SUDDERTH, C.J.; WALKER and KERR, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: December 7, 2017
# C_2014061EN.01000201.xml

| 1.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 20 November 2013 — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others v Rina Services SpA and Others

(Case C-593/13)

2014/C 61/02

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others

Appellants:

Respondents: Rina Services SpA and Others

Respondents:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the TFEU principles of freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU) and freedom to provide services (Article 56 TFEU) and the principles laid down in Directive 2006/123/EC (1) ... preclude the adoption and application of national legislation under which SOAs constituted as limited companies ‘must have their seat in Italian territory’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the TFEU principles of freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU) and freedom to provide services (Article 56 TFEU) and the principles laid down in Directive 2006/123/EC (1) ... preclude the adoption and application of national legislation under which SOAs constituted as limited companies ‘must have their seat in Italian territory’?

1

| 2. | Must the derogation provided for in Article 51 TFEU be interpreted as covering an activity such as the certification carried out by private-law bodies which, on the one hand, are required to be formed as limited companies and operate in a competitive market and, on the other hand, are connected with the exercise of official authority and, for that reason, are subject to authorisation and rigorous controls by the Supervisory Authorities? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the derogation provided for in Article 51 TFEU be interpreted as covering an activity such as the certification carried out by private-law bodies which, on the one hand, are required to be formed as limited companies and operate in a competitive market and, on the other hand, are connected with the exercise of official authority and, for that reason, are subject to authorisation and rigorous controls by the Supervisory Authorities?

---

(1)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                       EMONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC.
                            Listing of Subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                            State of
                       Subsidiary                                         Incorporation
---------------------------------------------------------               -----------------
<S>                                                                     <C>
 Emons Finance Corp.                                                        Delaware

 Emons Industries, Inc.                                                     New York

 Emons Logistics Services, Inc.                                             Delaware

 Emons Railroad Group, Inc.                                                 Delaware

      St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad Company                              Delaware
         SLR Leasing Corp.                                                  Delaware
      York Railway Company                                                  Delaware
         Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad, LLC                            Delaware
         Yorkrail, LLC                                                      Delaware
      Penn Eastern Rail Lines, Inc.                                         Delaware
      St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad (Quebec) Inc.                    Quebec, Canada

 Maine Intermodal Transportation, Inc.                                      Delaware
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18024]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:02 a.m. on 
Wednesday, July 1, 1998, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters 
relating to the Corporation's supervisory activities.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice 
Chairman Andrew C. Hove, Jr., seconded by Director Joseph H. Neely 
(Appointive), concurred in by Mr. Richard M. Riccobono, acting in the 
place and stead of Director Ellen S. Seidman (Director, Office of 
Thrift Supervision), Director Julia L. Williams (Acting Comtroller of 
the Currency), and Chairman Donna Tanoue, that Corporation business 
required its consideration of the matters on less than seven days' 
notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was 
practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of 
the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the 
matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of 
subsections (c)(6), (c)(8), and (c)(9)(A)(ii) of the ``Government in 
the Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), (c)(8), and (c)(9)(A)(ii)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550--17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

    Dated: July 1, 1998.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18024 Filed 7-2-98; 10:22 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M