alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Eric TURNER, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 13-5344.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Eduardo PEREZ-RIVA, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-7663.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.
case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 44   filed 06/25/14   page 1 of 4

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 44   filed 06/25/14   page 2 of 4

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 44   filed 06/25/14   page 3 of 4

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 44   filed 06/25/14   page 4 of 4
```

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 24648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11350]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 
on the Western Suisun Marsh Salinity Control Project

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of cancellation.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the California 
Department of Water Resources (DWR) are canceling plans to continue 
work under the National Environmental Policy Act and the California 
Environmental Quality Act on the environmental impact report/
environmental impacts statement (EIR/EIS) for the Western Suisun Marsh 
Salinity Control Project (Project), Plan of Protection for the Suisun 
Marsh, Phases III and IV. The EIR/EIS is being cancelled because it is 
unlikely that additional large-scale facilities are necessary for 
controlling salinity in the Suisun Marsh due to the provisions in the 
December 1994 draft Delta water quality control plan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Will Keck, Mid-Pacific Region, 
Bureau of Reclamation, Attention: MP-401, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, 
CA 95825-1898; telephone: (916) 979-2321; or Mr. Dwight P. Russell, 
Environmental Services Office, California Department of Water 
Resources, 3251 S Street, Sacramento, CA 95816-7017; telephone: (916) 
227-7529.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of intent was published in 55 FR 
47481, Nov. 13, 1990. The Project was aimed at lowering channel water 
salinity in the western portion of the Suisun Marsh. The construction 
of several ditches and culverts were being studied as part of the 
proposed action. With the release in December 1994 of the draft Water 
Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin 
Delta Estuary, and DWR's estimate of resulting salinity conditions in 
the Suisun Marsh, it is unlikely that additional large-scale facilities 
will be necessary for salinity control in the Suisun Marsh. DWR and 
Reclamation will evaluate if additional actions are needed for meeting 
western Suisun Marsh channel water salinity standards after the Suisun 
Marsh Ecological Work Group completes evaluating the basis for Suisun 
Marsh standards and recommends new standards.

    Dated: April 17, 1995.
Dan M. Fults,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 95-11350 Filed 5-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-94-P
```
exv10wxd4y



 





Exhibit 10(d4)




SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE

CAPITOL BANCORP LTD.

EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN




     The Capitol Bancorp Ltd. Employee Stock Ownership Plan is hereby
amended effective July 1, 2002 by adding the following participating employers
at the end of the list therein contained:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name of	 	Type of	 	State of	 	Date of
	Employer
	 	Entity
	 	Organization
	 	Participation

	Bank of Tucson

	 	Banking Corp.
	 	Arizona
	 	July 1, 2002
	Valley First Community Bank

	 	Banking Corp.
	 	Arizona
	 	July 1, 2002
	Camelback Community Bank

	 	Banking Corp.
	 	Arizona
	 	July 1, 2002
	Southern Arizona Community Bank

	 	Banking Corp.
	 	Arizona
	 	July 1, 2002
	Mesa Bank

	 	Banking Corp.
	 	Arizona
	 	July 1, 2002
	East Valley Community Bank

	 	Banking Corp.
	 	Arizona
	 	July 1, 2002
	Arrowhead Community Bank

	 	Banking Corp.
	 	Arizona
	 	July 1, 2002







	 	 	 	 	 
	 	CAPITOL BANCORP LIMITED

 	 
	Dated: July 1, 2002 	By:  	/s/ Joseph D. Reid
 	 
	 	 	Joseph D. Reid 	 
	 	 	Chairman and CEO 	 
	 
	 	BANK OF TUCSON

 	 
	Dated: July 1, 2002 	By:  	/s/ Michael Hannley
 	 
	 	 	Michael Hannley 	 
	 	 	President and CEO 	 
	 
	 	VALLEY FIRST COMMUNITY BANK

 	 
	Dated: July 1, 2002 	By:  	/s/ Judy Egan
 	 
	 	 	Judy Egan 	 
	 	 	President 	 
	 
	 	CAMELBACK COMMUNITY BANK

 	 
	Dated: July 1, 2002 	By:  	/s/ Barbara Ralston
 	 
	 	 	Barbara Ralston 	 
	 	 	President 	 



 









 






	 	 	 	 	 
	 	SOUTHERN ARIZONA COMMUNITY BANK

 	 
	Dated: July 1, 2002 	By:  	/s/ John P. Lewis
 	 
	 	 	John P. Lewis 	 
	 	 	President 	 
	 
	 	MESA BANK

 	 
	Dated: July 1, 2002 	By:  	/s/ Neil Barna
 	 
	 	 	Neil Barna 	 
	 	 	President 	 
	 
	 	EAST VALLEY COMMUNITY BANK

 	 
	Dated: July 1, 2002 	By:  	/s/ Gerry Smith
 	 
	 	 	Gerry Smith 	 
	 	 	President 	 
	 
	 	ARROWHEAD COMMUNITY BANK

 	 
	Dated: July 1, 2002 	By:  	/s/ Arlene Kulzer
 	 
	 	 	Arlene Kulzer 	 
	 	 	President
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-16   filed 07/14/15   page 1 of 9

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-16   filed 07/14/15   page 2 of 9

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-16   filed 07/14/15   page 3 of 9

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-16   filed 07/14/15   page 4 of 9

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-16   filed 07/14/15   page 5 of 9

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-16   filed 07/14/15   page 6 of 9

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-16   filed 07/14/15   page 7 of 9

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-16   filed 07/14/15   page 8 of 9

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-16   filed 07/14/15   page 9 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-16

)

LEONARD C. RILEY )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on April 2, 2013, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the single-count Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 2nd day of April, 2013.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6585
MALIK ABDUL AL-SHABAZZ, a/k/a Willie L. Furtick, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus GARY D. MAYNARD, Director of SCDC; RICKIE HARRISON, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-01-3985-4-25BH) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 20, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Malik Abdul Al-Shabazz, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Malik Abdul Al-Shabazz seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Al-Shabazz that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Al-Shabazz failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Al-Shabazz has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

.


# United States **Court of Appeals** 

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

ZIMMER, INC., ZIMMER U.S.,
Appellants

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Appellee

HERAEUS MEDICAL LLC, HERAEUS MEDICAL
GMBH,

Intervenors

______________________

2021

- 2286

______________________

Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission in Investigation No. 337

- TA

- 1175.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the parties’ joint stipulation to voluntarily dismiss this appeal, which the court construes
as a motion to voluntarily dismiss,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : Case: 21-2286 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 03/15/2022ZIMMER

, INC

. v. ITC 2

(1) The motion is granted to the extent that the a p

p eal is d ismissed.

(2) Eac h side shall bear its own costs.

March 15, 2022

Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 15, 2022 Case: 21-2286 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 03/15/2022
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26722-26723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12243]



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



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board Task Force on Joint Technology Issues

action: Notice of Advisory Committee meetings.

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

summary: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Joint Technology 
Issues will meet in closed session on May 30 and June 29, 1995 at the 
Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings the 
Task Force will work with the JCS Chairman and Vice Chairman in 
[[Page 26723]] support of the Expanded JROC activities. The Task Force 
should place special emphasis on the application of technology to 
enhance the effectiveness of the evolving force structure within tight 
fiscal constraints and should also place a special focus on issues 
dealing with operations other than war.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1988)), it has 
been determined that these DSB Task Force meetings concern matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c)(1) (1988), and that accordingly these 
meetings will be closed to the public.

    Dated: May 15, 1995.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-12243 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
EXHIBIT 15(a)








Texas Utilities Company (doing business as TXU Corp):

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited
condensed consolidated  interim financial information of Texas Utilities
Company (doing business as  TXU Corp) and subsidiaries (TXU) for the periods
ended June 30, 1999 and  1998, as indicated in our report dated
August 12, 1999; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion
on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in TXU's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1999, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statements No. 33-55931, 333-27989,
333-32831, 333-56055, 333-68663 and 333-68663-01 on Form S-3 and Registration
Statements No. 333-32833, 333-32835, 333-32837, 333-32839, 333-32841,
333-32843, 333-45657, 333-46671 and 333-79627 on Form S-8 of Texas
Utilities Company.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that
Act.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
August 12, 1999
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

PRAIRIE FARMS DAIRY, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 1:13–cv-00085-PPS

v. )

)

RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND )

DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, )

UFCW, LOCAL NO. 810, )

 )

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc. moved for summary judgment on October 25, 2013

(Docket Entry 40), defendant Local No. 810 responded (DE 42), and the motion was fully

briefed on November 21, 2013 when Prairie Farms replied (DE 46). The parties are ORDERED

to appear in my courtroom for oral argument on the motion for summary judgment on Friday,

January 3, 2014 at 10 a.m. EST (Hammond time).

Local No. 810 moved for sanctions against Prairie Farms on November 27, 2013. (DE

47.) Prairie Farms moved to stay the sanctions motion until the motion for summary judgment is

decided, because the two issues overlap. (DE 50.) The basis for the motion for sanctions is 28

U.S.C. § 1927, which allows for assessment of costs and fees to an attorney who multiplies court

proceedings unreasonably and vexatiously. Local No. 810 argues that Prairie Farms’s case for

overturning the arbitrator’s award is frivolous, and Prairie Farms was put on notice of that fact

by the arbitrator’s decisions in this matter in favor of Local No. 810. So determination of the

motion for sanctions comes down to whether Prairie Farms’s counsel has behaved frivolously in

the pursuit of this case, and overlaps with the disposition of the case, which is what the motion
for summary judgment may determine. I will therefore consider the motion for sanctions only

after I have considered the motion for summary judgment, so I GRANT Prairie Farms’s motion

to stay the motion for sanctions. (DE 50.)

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: December 6, 2013

/s/ Philip P. Simon

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
EXHIBIT 32
----------




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



     The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be
deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 or any other securities law:

     Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of CARLYLE REAL ESTATE
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - XIII.




    By: /s/  H. Rigel Barber            By: /s/  Gailen J. Hull
        ---------------------------         ---------------------------
        H. Rigel Barber                     Gailen J. Hull
        Chief Executive Officer             Chief Financial Officer and
                                            Principal Accounting Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      11,119,300
<SECURITIES>                                76,917,400
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,778,200
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,230,600
<PP&E>                                       5,029,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                 133,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             294,457,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,493,700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,829,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,040,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               294,457,300
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,036,400
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,245,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               322,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,283,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                991,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                   127,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   864,200
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .65


</TABLE>
FDIC Advisory Committee on 

Community Banking

November 3, 2021

Community Bank Research 
2

The Importance of Technology Investments for Community Bank Lending and 

Deposit Taking During the Pandemic

Key Question: Did prior technology 

investment help community banks lend 

and take deposits during the pandemic?

Key Finding:

Community banks that invested more in 

technology generally reported faster loan 

growth in 2020 than did banks with less 

investment.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1 2 2017 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 - 2020 2017- 2020 2017- 2020 2017- 2020

2019 2019 2019 2019 

IT Spending Number of Average Growth Number of 

to Assets PCs per in Data Processing Adopted

Employee Expenses Technologies

Percent of Assets

Lowest Quartile 0-3 Technologies

Highest Quartile 4-7 Technologies

Median Average Loan Growth by Previous 

Technology Investment
3

The Importance of Technology Investments for Community Bank Lending and 

Deposit Taking During the Pandemic

Key Finding:

Community banks with greater technology 

investment, on average, originated a greater 

share of PPP loans regardless of loan size, 

origination date, or borrower distance from 

the nearest bank branch.

Average PPP Loan Volume as a Share of 

Assets by Loan Size

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Less

Than 10

10 to

25

25 to

50

50 to

100

100 to

250

250 to

500

500 to

1,000

More

Than

1,000

Banks With Less Technology Investment

Banks With Greater Technology Investment

Loan Size (in Thousands of Dollars)

Percent of Assets
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01641-RL-MGG document 1 filed 06/23/14 page 1 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01641-RL-MGG document 1 filed 06/23/14 page 2 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01641-RL-MGG document 1 filed 06/23/14 page 3 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01641-RL-MGG document 1 filed 06/23/14 page 4 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01641-RL-MGG document 1 filed 06/23/14 page 5 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01641-RL-MGG document 1 filed 06/23/14 page 6 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01641-RL-MGG document 1 filed 06/23/14 page 7 of 8
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01641-RL-MGG document 1 filed 06/23/14 page 8 of 8
Gabriel Humberto GARCIA-OCAMPO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7285.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
James C. GIONFRIDDO, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-7406.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 27374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12760]



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


FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

Farm Credit Administration Board; Regular Meeting
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the 
Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), that the June 8, 1995 regular 
meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board) will not be 
held and that a special meeting of the Board is scheduled for Thursday, 
June 15, 1995 at 10:00 a.m. An agenda for this meeting will be 
published at a later date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Floyd Fithian, Secretary to the Farm 
Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4025, TDD (703) 883-4444.

ADDRESS: Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, 
Virginia 22102-5090.

    Date: May 19, 1995.
Floyd Fithian,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 95-12760 Filed 5-19-95; 3:25 pm]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P