alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22435-22436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11126]



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

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE


Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC); Notice of the Effective 
Date, With Respect to the Republic of Azerbaijan, of the Agreement on 
Trade Relations Between the United States of America and the Union of 
Soviet Socialist Republics

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice of the Effective Date, with respect to the Republic of 
Azerbaijan, of the Agreement on Trade Relations Between the United 
States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

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

SUMMARY: In Proclamation 6352 of October 9, 1991 (56 FR 51317), the 
President proclaimed that the ``Agreement on Trade Relations Between 
the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics'' would enter into force and nondiscriminatory treatment 
would be extended to products of the U.S.S.R. in accordance with the 
terms of the Agreement on the date of exchange of written notices of 
acceptance in accordance with Article XVII of the Agreement. 
Subsequently, the U.S.S.R. was succeeded by twelve independent states, 
including the Republic of Azerbaijan. An exchange of diplomatic notes 
with the Republic of Azerbaijan in accordance with Article XVII of the 
Agreement, as modified by technical adjustments and retitled 
``Agreement on Trade Relations between the United States of America and 
the Republic of Azerbaijan,'' took place in Baku, Azerbaijan on April 
21, 1995. Accordingly, the Agreement became effective on April 21, 
1995, with respect to the Republic of Azerbaijan, and nondiscriminatory 
treatment is extended to products of the Republic of Azerbaijan as of 
April 21, 1995 in accordance with the Agreement and as 
[[Page 22436]] provided for in Proclamation 6352 of October 9, 1991.
Frederick L. Montgomery,
Chairman, Trade Policy Staff Committee.
[FR Doc. 95-11126 Filed 5-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 746 

Designating August 2022 as ‘‘National Catfish Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 4, 2022 

Mr. WICKER (for himself, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. TUBERVILLE, 

Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. COTTON, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. SHELBY, 

Mr. TILLIS, Mr. WARNOCK, and Mr. CRUZ) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating August 2022 as ‘‘National Catfish Month’’. 

Whereas the Catfish Institute recognizes August to be National Catfish Month; 

Whereas the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas recognize August to be National Catfish Month; 

Whereas the States of Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, 

and Tennessee embody the Channel Catfish as their 

State Fish; 

Whereas the farm-raised catfish industry in the United 

States employs nearly 10,000 people and contributes 

more than $4,000,000,000 to the economy of the United 

States; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 746 ATS 

Whereas the United States has 67,640 surface water acres 

used for catfish production in 2022, and catfish growers 

in the United States had $421,161,000 in sales during 

2021; 

Whereas the average catfish farmer produces 5,000 pounds 

of catfish per acre; 

Whereas 99 percent of all United States farm-raised catfish 

are grown in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, and 

Texas; 

Whereas catfish is the largest farm-raised seafood product, 

by weight, in the United States, representing more than 

50 percent of the United States aquaculture industry; 

Whereas United States farm-raised catfish are consistently 

high quality and, unlike ocean-caught fish, are available 

all year long; 

Whereas United States farm-raised catfish are a sustainable 

and environmentally friendly seafood product; 

Whereas catfish is a lean fish and an excellent source of protein; and 

Whereas catfish is a versatile fish in cuisine of the United 

States, with a myriad of regional and national recipes to 

be enjoyed by all people of the United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates August 2022 as ‘‘National Cat3 fish Month’’; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 746 ATS 

1 (2) recognizes the contributions of all workers, 

2 past and present, that produce, process, and provide 

3 catfish for the people of the United States; and 

4 (3) recognizes that purchasing United States 

5 farm-raised catfish supports farmers, jobs, and the 

6 economy of the United States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.1****Certificate Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002**In connection with Arlington Tankers Ltd.’s (the “Company”) quarterly report on Form 10-Q for thethree months ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Arthur L. Regan, President and Co-Chief ExecutiveOfficer, and Edward Terino, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, each herebycertifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to our knowledge:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Date: May 9, 2007 /s/  Arthur L. Regan         Name: Arthur L. Regan    Title: President and Co-Chief Executive Officer       Date: May 9, 2007 /s/  Edward Terino         Name: Edward Terino    Title: Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Melanie BARNES and Tony Barnes, Appellants, v. BENNY'S BAR, LLC. and Grace Ohana, LLC., Appellees.

Case No. 5D18-647

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 4, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Abatement O rder F iled October 1, 2015.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00329

- CR

____________ GREGORY LOUIS BRANHA M, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 239th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 70224



### ABATEMENT ORDER
The trial court failed to submit findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement. Article 38.22, section 6 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires the trial court to make written fact findings and conclusions of law as to whether a challenged statement was made voluntarily, even if appellant did not request them or object to their absence. Tex. Code Crim.
Proc. art. 38.22 ' 6; Urias v. State , 155 S.W .3d 141, 142 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).The statute is mandatory and the proper procedure to correct the error is to abate

the appeal and direct the trial court to make the required findings and conclusions.
See Tex. R. App. P. 44.4; Wicker v. State , 740 S.W. 2d 779, 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).
Accordingly, the trial court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement and have a supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings fi led with the c lerk of this
Court on or before November 2, 2015.
The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this Court. The Court will
also consid er an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HUAFENG XU,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-5016

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:13-cv-00261-MMS, Judge Margaret M. 

Sweeney. 

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

The court construes Huafeng Xu’s filings as (1) a motion for reconsideration of the January 6, 2014 order 

dismissing his case for failure to file a brief and (2) a 

motion to recuse the Clerk of Court. 

Upon consideration thereof,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

Case: 14-5016 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 01/31/2014
2 XU v. US

(1) The motion for reconsideration is denied. 

(2) The motion to recuse the Clerk of Court is denied.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Anne M. Tomlinson 

 Anne M. Tomlinson

Acting Chief Deputy Clerk

 

s26

Case: 14-5016 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 01/31/2014
Roger D. HUGHES, a/k/a Roger Hughes, Appellant, v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, d/b/a Christiana Trust, not Individually but as Trustee for Pretium Mortgage Acquisition Trust, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3079

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 27, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN DULBERG, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and

RASIER, LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00850 WHA

ORDER RE MOTION 

TO DISMISS

On April 24, defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and Raiser, LLC, filed a motion to

dismiss (Dkt. No. 25). On May 15, the last day for briefing, plaintiff Martin Dulberg filed an

amended complaint (Dkt. No. 30). By JUNE 1 AT NOON, defendants shall please advise the

Court as to whether the pending motion to dismiss should be denied as moot, or whether

defendants would prefer to proceed on said motion as if it were directed to the amended

complaint. If the latter, then a new briefing and hearing schedule will be set accordingly. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EXHIBIT 32.2

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         I,  Steven F.  Schepman,  Senior  Vice  President  and Chief  Financial
Officer of First Banks, Inc. (the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         (1)   The  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  of the  Company  for  the
               quarterly   period   ended  June 30,  2006 (the  "Report")  fully
               complies with the  requirements of Sections 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.


Date:  August 11, 2006

                                           By: /s/ Steven F. Schepman
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                   Steven F. Schepman
                                                   Senior Vice President and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                                   (Principal Financial and
                                                   Accounting 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.                  

###### Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries

# AGENCY:

Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.

# ACTION:

Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting; amended.

# SUMMARY:

                        This notice amends the location of the partially closed meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations previously announced in the                         **Federal Register**                         of December 16, 2024.                    

# DATES:

January 6, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and January 7, 2025, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Elizabeth Van Osten, Designated Federal Officer, Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations, at (202) 312-3648 or                         *Elizabeth.jvanosten@irs.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    As published in the                     **Federal Register**                     of December 16, 2024 (89 FR 101626), the meeting was to be held at the Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224. However, due to a weather-related building closure precluding an in-person meeting, the meeting was held by teleconference instead. There were no other changes to the meeting. Because the circumstances necessitating the change to the venue of the meeting were beyond the control of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, it was unable to provide public notification about the changes, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a).                

Dated: February 7, 2025.

Thomas V. Curtin, Jr.,

Executive Director, Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.

[FR Doc. 2025-02509 Filed 2-11-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 13a0526n.06

No. 12-5763

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

In re: WILLIAM W. PIERCE, JR.,

Debtor,

MAXIE E. HIGGASON, JR.,

CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

VANDERBILT MORTGAGE AND

FINANCE, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF

KENTUCKY

OPINION

Before: MOORE, SUTTON, and DONALD, Circuit Judges. 

Bernice B. Donald, Circuit Judge. Maxie E. Higgason, Jr., a Chapter 7 Trustee, brought

a strong-arm proceeding against Appellant Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. (Vanderbilt) to

avoid a lien claimed byVanderbilt against William W. Pierce, Jr.’s manufactured home. Vanderbilt

failed to file its Certificate of Title in Pierce’s county of residence, but instead filed it in its own

county of residence. We quite recently confronted virtually identical factual and legal issues in

Vanderbilt Mortg. & Fin., Inc. v. Westenhoefer, No. 11-6216, (6th Cir. March ___, 2013). There

we concluded that a Certificate of Title must be filed in the debtor’s county of residence in order to

be properly perfected under Kentucky law. On the basis of that decision, we AFFIRM.
Richard ALBERTY, Appellant, v. JEC ONE, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company, Appellee.

Case No. 2D14-285

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 3, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 21188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10560]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. PR95-9-000]


Three Rivers Pipeline; Notice of Petition for Rate Approval

April 25, 1995.
    Take notice that on April 3, 1995, Three Rivers Pipeline (Three 
Rivers) filed pursuant to Sec. 284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's 
Regulations, a petition for rate approval, requesting the Commission 
approve as fair and equitable its proposed rates for transportation 
services under Section 311(a)(2) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 
(NGPA).
    Three Rivers proposes a maximum interruptible rate of $.2374 per 
MMBtu and a maximum firm commodity charge of $.1042 per MMBtu with a 
monthly demand charge of $4.0514 for transportation service. Three 
Rivers proposes a 2.5% adder for fuel use and losses. Three Rivers 
proposes an April 1, 1995 effective date.
    Three Rivers states it is a Pennsylvania intrastate pipeline, 
consisting of about 121 miles of 8 inch pipe, traversing southwest 
Pennsylvania from Midland, Pennsylvania on the west, eastward to 
Altoona, Pennsylvania.
    Pursuant to Sec. 284.123(b)(2)(ii), if the Commission does not act 
within 150 days of the filing date, the rate will be deemed to be fair 
and equitable and not in excess of an amount which interstate pipelines 
would be permitted to charge for similar transportation service. The 
Commission may, prior to the expiration of the 150 day period, extend 
the time for action or institute a proceeding to afford parties an 
opportunity for written comments and for oral presentation of views, 
data, and arguments.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must 
file a motion to intervene in accordance with Sec. 385.211 and 
Sec. 385.214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures. All 
motions must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission on or before 
May 16, 1995. The petition for rate approval is on file with the 
Commission and is available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-10560 Filed 4-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Universal American Corp. (the "Registrant") for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Richard A. Barasch, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, and Robert A.
Waegelein, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, each 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 the best of his knowledge:



Date: July 30, 2009

/s/ RICHARD A. BARASCHRichard A. Barasch Chief Executive OfficerDate: July 30, 2009

/s/ ROBERT A. WAEGELEINRobert A. Waegelein Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that Section. This certification is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in
such filing.

---



QuickLinks
Peter Alfred PANNERI, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3927

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22 - 11102 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Adam Contreras,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22 - CR - 43 - 1

**_______________________ _______**  Before **Wiener, Stewart,** and **Douglas,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Adam Contreras pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possessing with the intent to distribute a controlled substance. The district court sentenced him to 240 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. On appeal, Cont reras argues that the district court committed plain error by not allowing him the opportunity to allocute at

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 18, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-11102 Document: 108-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2024No. 22 - 11102

2 sentencing, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(4)(A)(ii) . Though Contreras’s plea agreement contain s an appellate waiver, h e argues that this court should not enforce the appeal waiver under a miscarriage - of - justice exception . Whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal is a question we review de novo. United States v. Keele , 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). Although some othe r circuits have recognized the possibility of a miscarriage - of - justice exception to appeal waivers, “we have declined explicitly either to adopt or to reject it.” United States v. Barnes , 953 F.3d 383, 389 (5th Cir. 2020). Nevertheless, Contreras has fai led to explain the scope of a potential miscarriage - of - justice exception or why it should apply to his unpreserved allocution challenge. See id . Accordingly, Contreras’ s appeal waiver bars this appeal. See United States v. Story , 439 F.3d 226, 230 - 31 & n.5 (5th Cir. 2006) . **APPEAL DISMISSED**  **.** Case: 22-11102 Document: 108-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2024
IN RE: COMMITMENT OF Oney STEPHENSON, Appellant,

Case No. 5D18-3905

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.