alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11301]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[CGD 05-95-014]
RIN 2115


Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; 17th Annual 
Wilmington Family YMCA--Physicians Health Plan Triathlon, Wrightsville 
Channel, Wrightsville Beach, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of implementation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice implements the special local regulations for the 
16th Annual Wilmington Family YMCA--Physicians Health Plan Triathlon. 
The swim portion of the event will be held in Wrightsville Channel 
between daybeacon 18 (LLNR 28050) and daybeacon 23 (LLNR 28065). These 
regulations restrict vessel traffic within the regulated area during 
the event. These special local regulations are considered necessary to 
control vessel traffic and to provide for the safety of the 
participants in the event.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.513 are effective from 6 
a.m. to 9:45 a.m., September 10, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Phillips, Chief, Boating Affairs Branch, Fifth Coast Guard 
District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmounh Virginia 23704-5004 (804) 
398-6204, or Commander, Coast Guard Group Fort Macon (919) 247-4548.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Drafting Information

    The drafters of this notice are QM2 Gregory C. Garrison, project 
officer, Boating Affairs Branch, Boating Safety Division, Fifth Coast 
Guard District, and LCDR C.A. Abel, project attorney, Fifth Coast Guard 
District Legal Staff.

Discussion of Regulations

    The Wilmington Family YMCA submitted an application to hold the 
swim portion of the 17th Annual Wilmington Family YMCA--Physicians 
Health Plan Triathlon at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. This swim 
portion of the triathlon will consist of approximately 700 swimmers 
racing in a section of the Wrightsville Channel. The regulations in 33 
CFR 100.513 govern the activities of the swim portion of the triathlon 
on Wrightsville Channel between Wrightsville Channel Daybeacon 18 (LLNR 
28050) and Wrightsville Channel Daybeacon 23 (LLNR 28065). Because the 
swim portion of the triathlon is an event of the type contemplated by 
these regulations, the safety of the participants will be enhanced by 
the implementation of the special local regulations. The waterway will 
be closed from 6 a.m. to 9:45 a.m., September 10, 1995, for the event. 
Since the waterway will not be closed for an extended period, 
commercial traffic should not be severely disrupted.

    Dated: April 14, 1995.
W.J. Ecker,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 95-11301 Filed 5-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
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

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;

OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO

TRUCKING LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER RE RESPONSE TO

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF 

AND PROPOSED JURY

INSTRUCTION

Defendants may respond to plaintiff Waymo LLC’s supplemental brief and proposed

jury instruction (Dkt. No. 1502) by SEPTEMBER 15 AT NOON.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:16-cv-07230-HSG Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 1 of 6
Case 4:16-cv-07230-HSG Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 2 of 6
Case 4:16-cv-07230-HSG Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 3 of 6
Case 4:16-cv-07230-HSG Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 4 of 6
Case 4:16-cv-07230-HSG Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 5 of 6
Case 4:16-cv-07230-HSG Document 1 Filed 12/19/16 Page 6 of 6
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

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER RE LETTER DATED

MARCH 13, 2017

The Court has reviewed defendants’ letter dated March 13, 2017 (Dkt. No. 42). Defense

counsel shall please bring to the case management conference on March 16 the specific

person(s) in Uber’s legal department who defendants believe should be able to see the redacted

materials at issue, as well as the resumes for such person(s). The Court requests, however, that

counsel for both sides work this snafu out before the case management conference on March 16. 

Plaintiff should remember that it seeks extraordinary and drastic relief. Every day counts, but

preliminary relief may be postponed until this problem is resolved.

Plaintiff shall please respond to defendants’ letter by MARCH 15 AT NOON.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 44 Filed 03/13/17 Page 1 of 1
Bobby Jahswonn MCNEAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-650

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 10, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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

GEORGE COSIO,

Petitioner,

 vs.

A. P. KANE, Acting Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-1966 CRB (PR)

ORDER 

(Doc # 4)

Good cause appearing, petitioner’s motion (doc # 4) for an extension of

time to file a traverse is GRANTED. Petitioner may file a traverse by no later

than February 10, 2006.

No further extensions of time will be granted.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Jan.12, 2006 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01966-CRB Document 5 Filed 01/12/06 Page 1 of 1
Ural GRIMES Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D19-886

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AKBAL SINGH NIJJAR,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71650

Agency No. A073-417-086

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 26, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Akbal Singh Nijjar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

FILED

JUL 09 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-71650

denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th

Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Nijjar’s second motion to

reopen as untimely and number-barred where the successive motion was filed

nearly six years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and

Nijjar failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in India to qualify for the

regulatory exception to the time and number limitations, see 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89.

We reject Nijjar’s contention that the BIA did not adequately examine his

evidence. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding

petitioner had not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record);

see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (the BIA “does not have to write an exegesis

on every contention”). Further, Nijjar’s contentions that the BIA failed to apply

the proper legal standard or address his claim for relief under the Convention

Against Torture are belied by the record. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2565
PRENTISS MURRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GALEY & LORD, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-2115-4-21-JI) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: January 31, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Prentiss Murray, Appellant Pro Se. Allan Lash Shackelford, SMITH, HELMS, MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his employment discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2 (West 1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Murray v. Galey & Lord, Inc. , No. CA-94- 2115-4-21-JI (D.S.C. July 19, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AS INCLUDED IN THE FORM
10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,141
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,922
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     49,625
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,593
<PP&E>                                          11,555
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 217,075
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           90,245
<BONDS>                                          6,550
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     31,600
<COMMON>                                           475
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,683
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   217,075
<SALES>                                         51,204
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,332
<CGS>                                           34,657
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,149
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 972
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,554
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,470
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,084
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,084
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
Gregory Lewis HOLDER, petitioner, v. Cindy CURTIN, Warden.

No. 12-9594.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MINUTE ORDER 

The Honorable Claudia Wilken, Presiding 

Date: January 19, 2023 Time: 2:30 – 3:11 

Deputy Clerk: Tracy Geiger Recorded via Zoom 

Case No.: 17-cv-00755-CW

Case Name: Juan Quintanilla Vasquez v. Libre by Nexus, Inc. 

Appearances for Plaintiff: Annick Persinger, Jesse Newmark, 

Jason Rathod, Cameron Partovi 

Appearances for Defendant: Sean Sullivan, John Shoreman, 

Michael Gorby 

Principals of Defendant Libre by Nexus: Michael Donovan, Evan Ajin, 

and Richard Moore. Also present: Zachary Lawrence and Joshua 

Matic. 

Proceedings: Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Hold LBN’s Principals 

in Contempt and for Sanctions – HELD via Zoom Webinar. 

Hearing held. The Court heard arguments on the motion. The Court 

took the motion under submission. The Court will issue a written 

order. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 245 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 1
Harlan RICHARDS, petitioner, v. David WHITE, et al.

No. 12-9063.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District IV, denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEREMY VAUGHN PINSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

HAYDEN, Dr., Chief of Psychology; 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, 

Defendants.

No. 19-15515 

D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00382-RMPSOT 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 20, 2021**

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. 

 

Federal prisoner Jeremy Vaughn Pinson appeals pro se from the district 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 28 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-15515 

court’s judgment dismissing her action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) for failure to 

pay the filing fee after denying Pinson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the 

district court’s interpretation and application of § 1915(g), Washington v. L.A. Cty. 

Sheriff’s Dep’t, 833 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016), and for abuse of discretion 

for denial of leave to proceed IFP, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 

1990). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Pinson’s motion to proceed IFP because 

Pinson had filed three prior actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or 

for failure to state a claim, and she did not plausibly allege that she was “under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time she lodged the complaint. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053, 1055-56 

(9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).

AFFIRMED.
212° F 100° C

 194 90

 176 80

 158 70

 140 60

 122 50

 104 40

 86 30

 68 20

 50 10

 32 0

关

高

中

危险

低

热食保温的重要性...

90 ̊F (32 ̊C)

的碎牛肉

(32 ̊C) 危险

保持热食温度不低

于135 ̊F

(57 ̊C)!

谨记:避免食

物保存在以下

危险温度区间 

41 ̊F - 135 ̊F 

(5 ̊C - 57 ̊C)!

维护众人健康。

保持热食温度不低于135 ̊F!
Opinion issued January 16 , 201 4

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 14 - 00011 - CV

——————————— IN RE EDWARD R. NEWSOME , Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 3, 2014, relator Edward Roy Newsome filed a document in this Court which purports to be a petition for a writ of mandamus. The underlying lawsuit is Newsome v. St. Luke Hospital , No. 2005

– 06163 (234th Dist. Ct., Harris County, Tex., Sept. 14, 2005). Relator’s petition and motions do not identify the respondent or real party in interest. In addition, relator has neither paid the required filing fees, nor filed an affidavit of i ndigence that complies with the2

requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Relator has also failed to provide a record as required by T EX . R. A PP . P . 52.7. A court of appeals has no general writ power over a person

— other than a judge of a di strict or county court

— unless issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court in a case properly before it. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a), (b) (West 2013); Silva v. Klevenhagen , 833 S.W.2d 746, 747 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 st Dist
. ] 1992, orig. proceeding). Because the petition does not identify the respondent, we have no jurisdiction over relator’s petition. We dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. All outstanding motions are dismissed as moot
. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Brown
.
Henry N. HARPER, petitioner, v. Daniel G. PADDEN, et al.

No. 12-9513.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.2

              CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Stephen Cartisano, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Elite Artz,
Inc.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this quarterly report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.     The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

       (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

       (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and

       (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

       (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

       (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.



                               /s/ Stephen Cartisano
Date: November 8, 2005          ___________________________________________
                              Stephen Cartisano, Chief Financial Officer
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 2, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21556-21557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10728]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Appointments to Performance Review Boards for Senior Executive 
Service

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Appointment to Performance Review Boards for Senior Executive 
Service.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has announced the 
following appointments to the NRC Performance Review Boards.

    The following individuals are appointed as members of the NRC 
Performance Review Board (PRB) responsible for making recommendations 
to the appointing and awarding authorities on performance appraisal 
ratings and performance awards for Senior Executives:

New Appointees:

Lawrence J. Chandler, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General 
Counsel
Richard L. Bangart, Director, Office of State Programs
Leonard J. Callan, Regional Administrator, Region IV
Ronald M. Scroggins, Deputy Chief Financial Officer/Controller, Office 
of the Controller
Ashok Thadani, Associate Director for Technical Assessment, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation

    In addition to the above new appointments, the following members 
are continuing on the PRB:

Stephen G. Burns, Associate General Counsel, Office of the General 
Counsel
John C. Hoyle, Secretary of the Commission, Office of the Secretary
James L. Blaha, Assistant for Operations, Office of the Executive 
Director for Operations
Frank J. Miraglia, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation
Bill M. Morris, Director, Division of Regulatory Applications, Office 
of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Elizabeth Q. Ten Eyck, Deputy Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety 
and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

    The following individuals will continue as members of the NRC PRB 
Panel that was established to review appraisals and make 
recommendations to the appointing and awarding authorities for NRC PRB 
members:

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Materials 
Safety, Safeguards and Operations Support, Office of the Executive 
Director for Operations
Karen D. Cyr, General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel
James L. Milhoan, Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor 
Operations, Regulatory Operations, and Research, Office of the 
Executive Director for Operations

    All appointments are made pursuant to Section 4314 of Chapter 43 of 
Title 5 of the United States Code.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 2, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James F. McDermott, Secretary, Executive Resources Board, U.S. 
[[Page 21557]] Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, 
(301) 415-7516.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of April 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James F. McDermott,
Secretary, Executive Resources Board.
[FR Doc. 95-10728 Filed 5-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
```