alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 24623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11321]



[[Page 24623]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Docket No. ER95-896-000]


Black Hills Corporation; Notice of Filing

May 3, 1995.
    Take notice that Black Hills Corporation, which operates its 
electric utility business under the assumed name of Black Hills Power 
and Light Company (Black Hills) on April 11, 1995, tendered for filing 
an executed form service agreement with Rainbow Energy Marketing 
Corporation.
    Copies of the filing were provided to the regulatory commission 
each of the states of Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming.
    Black Hills has requested that further notice requirement be waived 
and the tariff and executed service agreements be allowed to become 
effective April 11, 1995.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before May 15, 1995. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11321 Filed 5-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Confirmation for Extension of Tranche B Loan



  
 EXHIBIT 10.56 (c)

  
 Confirmation for Extension of Tranche B Loan

  
 January 3, 2004 
  
 To: Leshan-Phoenix Semiconductor Company Ltd. 
  
 Dear Sir or Madam: 
  
 We have received from your Company an Application for the Extension of Tranche B Loan dated January 2, 2004, in which Application your
Company applies to our Bank for a 5-day extension of Tranche B under the Loan Agreement executed between us on December 12, 2003. 
  
 We have reviewed your application and hereby grant our consent to the extension of the Tranche B loan which then shall become mature December 31, 2006. Your Company is
requested to execute further necessary documents for finalizing the extension matter hereunder in accordance with the internal regulations of China Construction Bank. 
  
 Regards, 
  

	
	China Construction Bank, Sichuan Branch (Seal)
	
	 Authorized Representative: /S/ WU MINHAO

	 Wu
Minhao
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-603
In Re: ESTELLA PRADE; JAMES JACKSON, Petitioners.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-94-18-3) Submitted: February 25, 1997 Decided: March 5, 1997 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Estella Prade, James Jackson, Petitioners Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Estella Prade and James Jackson petition this court for a Writ of Mandamus directing Judge Robert Maxwell to grant petitioners' motion to amend their complaint and grant them an expedited trial in connection with their civil action filed in Judge Maxwell'scourt against the law firm of Jackson & Kelly. We note that subsequent to the filing of this petition, the district court issued a decision granting summary judgment to Jackson & Kelly in Prade v. Jackson & Kelly , No. CA-94-18-3 (N.D. W. Va. Oct. 16, 1996). Thatdecision renders moot petitioners' request for the relief specified. Accordingly, we grant petitioners' motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but their petition for mandamus relief is denied.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 32  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    In connection with the Quarterly Report of Arbor Entech Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brad Houtkin, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: March 2, 2010 /s/ Brad Houtkin Brad Houtkin President and Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60163 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MICHAEL BULLOCK, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:01-CR-7-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender representing Michael Bullock has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Bullock’s response shows that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We decline to address any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, without prejudice to Bullock’s right to assert such claims in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United StatesNo. 05-60163 -2- v. Higdon , 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and this appeal is DISMISSED.
See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
Martin ALEXANDER, petitioner, v. Keith Rupert MURDOCH, et al.

No. 12-10124.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(released April 11, 2023)

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of 

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES:

None Available

The above-listed memorandum opinions can be viewed online through the 

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebraska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

https://www.nebraska.gov/courts/sccales/.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7211

MULLIE D. CRENSHAW,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BISHOP ROBINSON; RICHARD LANHAM,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-97-2313-JFM)

Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: January 7, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mullie D. Crenshaw, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a Maryland inmate, appeals the district court's

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under

28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e) (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is

frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. Crenshaw v. Robinson, No. CA-97-2313-JFM (D.

Md. July 30, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the

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

process.

DISMISSED
David Brian HILL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-8995.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

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

Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.

9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804

Los Angeles, California 90069

CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.

Ryan J. Clarkson (SBN 257074)

rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com

Shireen M. Clarkson (SBN 237882)

sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com

Bahar Sodaify (SBN 289730)

bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com

9255 Sunset Blvd., Ste. 804

Los Angeles, CA 90069

Tel: (213) 788-4050

Fax: (213) 788-4070

Attorneys for Plaintiff Thomas Iglesias 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS IGLESIAS, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FERRARA CANDY CO., and DOES 1 

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:17-cv-00849-VC

[CLASS ACTION]

PROOF OF SERVICE

Hon. Judge Vince Chabbria

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-13 Filed 09/06/18 Page 1 of 2
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

Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.

9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804

Los Angeles, California 90069

PROOF OF SERVICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I am employed in the County of LOS ANGELES, State of CALIFORNIA. I am over the age of 

18 and not a party to within action; my business address is 9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804, Los Angeles, 

CA 90069.

On September 6, 2018, I served the foregoing documents described as:

• PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, 

EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARD; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 

AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 

• DECLARATION OF RYAN J. CLARKSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARD 

• DECLARATION OF THOMAS IGLESIAS

• [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ 

FEES, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARD

on interested parties in this action by sending a true copy of the document to the following parties as 

follows:

HOGAN LOVELLS LLP

Michael J. Shepard

Michael.shepard@hoganlovells.com

3 Embarcadero Center., Suite 1500

San Francisco, California 94111

Tel: (415) 374-2310

Fax: (415) 374-2499

HOGAN LOVELLS LLP

J. Christopher Mitchell

chris.mitchell@hoganlovells.com

80 South Eighth Street, Suite 1225

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

Tel: (612) 402-3000

Fax: (612) 339-5167

 X (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I caused the document(s) to be sent to the offices of the 

addressees via CM/ECF Service.

 (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) I caused the document(s) to be successfully transmitted via 

electronic mail to the offices of the addressees.

Executed on September 6, 2018, at Los Angeles, California.

 (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 

above is true and correct.

 X (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at 

whose direction the service was made. 

 

 Stephanie Satow

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 83-13 Filed 09/06/18 Page 2 of 2
# L_2018079EN.01003001.xml

| 22.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 79/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 79/30

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2018/476

of 21 March 2018

amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 31 July 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 (1) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 31 July 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 (1) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.

| (2) | On 28 September 2017, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2017/1776 (2) amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 28 September 2017, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2017/1776 (2) amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333.

| (3) | In view of the continuing instability and gravity of the situation in Libya the Council has decided that the restrictive measures concerning three persons should be extended for a further period of 6 months. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In view of the continuing instability and gravity of the situation in Libya the Council has decided that the restrictive measures concerning three persons should be extended for a further period of 6 months.

| (4) | Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Article 17 of Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333, paragraphs 3 and 4 are replaced by the following:

‘3.   The measures referred to in Article 8(2) shall apply with regard to entries 16, 17 and 18 in Annex II until 2 October 2018.

4.   The measures referred to in Article 9(2) shall apply with regard to entries 21, 22 and 23 in Annex IV until 2 October 2018.’.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 21 March 2018.

For the Council

The President

E. ZAHARIEVA

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP (OJ L 206, 1.8.2015, p. 34).

1

(2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/1776 of 28 September 2017 amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ L 251, 29.9.2017, p. 28).

2

---
J. Guadalupe BRAVO-MENDOZA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9061.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 132 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 132

  To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prevent sex offenders 
subject to involuntary civil commitments from receiving Federal student 
                             financial aid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2005

 Mr. Keller (for himself, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Crenshaw, Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Miller of Florida, and Mr. Wilson of South Carolina) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                      Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prevent sex offenders 
subject to involuntary civil commitments from receiving Federal student 
                             financial aid.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

     This Act may be cited as the ``No Financial Aid for Sex Offenders 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AID.

    (a) Pell Grants.--Section 401(b)(8) of the Higher Education Act of 
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a(b)(8)) is amended by inserting before the period 
the following: ``or who is subject to an involuntary civil commitment 
upon completion of a period of incarceration for a sexual offense (as 
determined under regulations of the Secretary)''.
    (b) Loans.--Section 484(b)(5) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1091(b)(5)) is 
amended by inserting before the period the following: ``and no student 
who is subject to an involuntary civil commitment upon completion of a 
period of incarceration for a sexual offense (as determined under 
regulations of the Secretary) is eligible to receive a loan under this 
title''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sabine Royalty Trust (the Trust) on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual
capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and

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



SOUTHWEST BANK, TRUSTEE FOR SABINE ROYALTY
TRUSTBy: /s/ Ron E. HooperRon E. Hooper
SVP, Royalty Trust Management


Date: August 9, 2017

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sabine Royalty Trust and will be retained by Sabine Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TETYANA DORSANEO,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD MATTHEW DORSANEO,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00765-VC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES

Re: Dkt. No. 118

The motion for attorneys' fees is granted in part. Edward's proposal to trim the fee award 

to the amount expended by his own lawyers is not reasonable, because the work performed by 

Edward's lawyers was almost entirely worthless. However, after reviewing the papers and the 

supporting materials submitted by Tetyana's lawyers, the Court concludes that, although the rates 

charged for the work are reasonable, the decision to use four lawyers on the case, which was not 

intensely complicated, has made their billings unduly inefficient. To remedy this inefficiency 

and ensure that Edward is not forced to pay an unfair amount in attorneys' fees, the Court will 

excise half of Jennifer Panicker's billings and half of Sean Fredin's billings. The request for a 

multiplier is denied. Although the conduct of Edward's lawyers made the case more difficult 

than it needed to be, the level of difficulty and complexity was not so high as to justify a 

multiplier. Accordingly, Edward is ordered to pay Tetyana $94,259.68 in attorneys' fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2018

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge
Office of Global Policy and Strategy

May 18, 2022

Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency Meets with FDA

to Discuss Medical Product Issues

Today, the FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Janet Woodcock, M.D., and other FDA 

officials met with a delegation from the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency 

(ANVISA) led by Director-President Antonio Barra, M.D., to discuss issues of mutual 

interest related to drugs, biologics, and medical devices.

Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (Anvisa) is the most mature regulatory system 

in Latin America. It issues market authorizations for medical devices and 

pharmaceuticals; exercises post-marketing surveillance to ensure manufacturers 

comply with Brazilian requirements and is an active participant in international 

regulatory convergence initiatives.

The FDA maintains a close collaborative relationship with ANVISA, which was only 

heightened over the past two years during the coronavirus pandemic, Dr. Woodcock 

told the Brazilian delegation.

The FDA and ANVISA have a signed Statement of Cooperation and a Confidentiality 

Commitment in place that allow the two agencies to exchange inspection reports and 

discuss drug applications. Throughout the pandemic, these arrangements allowed the 

two regulators to share regulatory approaches to decision-making regarding medical 

products used to treat and prevent COVID-19.

ANVISA is also one of the seven regulatory agencies that participate with the FDA 

in Project Orbis, which provides the agencies a framework for concurrent submission 

and review of oncology drugs.

At today’s meeting, officials discussed strategies to address drug shortages and the 

medical product supply chain, the potential for future collaboration related to drugs for 

rare diseases, plans for the exchange of non-public information, monitoring medical 

products sold on the internet, and Brazil’s progress in developing a Unique Device 

Identification System for medical devices. 

The meeting was facilitated in a hybrid fashion, with some participating in person at the 

FDA’s headquarters in White Oak, Maryland, and others participating virtually.

Joining Dr. Woodcock from the FDA were Mark Abdoo, associate commissioner for 

global policy and strategy; Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics 

Evaluation and Research; Theresa Mullin, associate director for strategic initiatives in 
Office of Global Policy and Strategy

the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; and Melissa Torres, associate director for 

international affairs in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Joining Dr. Barra 

were Leonardo Dutra, head of Anvisa’s International Affairs Office; Karin Mendes, head 

of the Anvisa Cabinet; Renato Stancato, head of the Science and Technology Section 

of the Brazilian Embassy in Washington; and Samia Melo, advisor to Dr. Barra.
Edward JONES, petitioner, v. Adrian HOKE, Warden.

No. 12-8671.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied.
Janeen Denise SMITH, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 12-8336.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Felicia HARRIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. TAMPA HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4902

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.