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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1679 

To make supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2005 to ensure the 

inclusion of commonly used pesticides in State source water assessment 

programs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 19, 2005 

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To make supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2005 

to ensure the inclusion of commonly used pesticides in 

State source water assessment programs, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1679 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO ENSURE 

2 INCLUSION OF COMMONLY USED PESTICIDES 

3 IN STATE SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT PRO4 GRAMS. 

5 The following sums are appropriated, out of any 

6 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pro7 vide supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2005: 

8 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

9 STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

10 For an additional amount for ‘‘State and Tribal As11 sistance Grants’’, for grants for the Drinking Water State 

12 Revolving Funds under section 1452 of the Safe Drinking 

13 Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j–12) for State expenses of for14 mulating source water assessment programs under section 

15 1453 of such Act, $85,000,000, to remain available until 

16 expended. 

17 Hereafter, source water assessment programs under 

18 section 1453 of such Act shall include (1) the assessment 

19 of the pesticides chlorothalonil, pendimethalin, paraquat, 

20 cyanazine, bensulide, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, metalaxyl, 

21 and mecoprop; (2) the assessment of surface water 

22 sources; (3) the assessment of residential drinking wells; 

23 and (4) the assessment of contaminated soil. 

Æ
NO. 07-09-0106-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

FEBRUARY 17, 2010

_____________________________

JESSE EARL ANDREWS, APPELLANT

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

____________________________

FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

NO. 20512-C; HONORABLE ANA ESTEVEZ, JUDGE

______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

**MEMORANDUM OPINION**

Appellant, Jesse Earl Andrews, was convicted of burglary of a building.[footnoteRef:1]  After appellant pleaded true to the allegations contained in the enhancement paragraph, the jury sentenced him to 20 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant has appealed the trial courts decision.  We affirm. [1:  See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a) (Vernon 2003).] 

Appellants attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967).  In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Id. at 744-45.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial courts judgment.  Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a *pro se* response in this matter.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a *pro se* response.  Appellant has filed a response which we have carefully reviewed.  After reviewing the response filed by appellant, we note that it does not raise any additional grounds to support an appeal.

By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous.  We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal.  SeePenson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsels motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial courts judgment is affirmed.[footnoteRef:2] [2: Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellants right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.] 

		Mackey K. Hancock

		         Justice

Do not publish.
Milton ESCOBAL, petitioner, v. CLELEBRATION CRUISE OPERATOR, INC., et al.

No. 12-972.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Covenant Group of China Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Justin D. Csik, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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; 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 : April 15, 2011
By:
/s/ Justin D. CsikName: Justin D. CsikTitle: Chief Financial Offic





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michelle Garner HALL, petitioner, v. Kathy SEABOLT, Warden.

No. 12-1263.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
* 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
March 8, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-31005 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
$197,557.00 in U.S. CURRENCY,

Defendant,

versus

EDWARD LEWIS HANSARD,

Claimant-Appellant.

------------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:88-CV-1318

--------------------------------------------------------------
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *-2-

Edward Lewis Hansard appeals from the denial of his F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 60(b) motion seeking

to void the civil forfeiture of $197,577 in United States currency pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).

Hansard’s Rule 60(b) motion was filed 16 years after the currency was seized pursuant to a default

judgment. We grant Hansard’s motion to expand the record on appeal to include a copy of his Rule

60(b) motion.

Citing Scarabin v. Drug Enforcement Admin
., 966 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1992), Hansard argues

that the district court never had jurisdiction over the for feit ure proceeding because the DEA

possessed only a cashier’s check and never actually possessed the currency. We do not consider this

argument as it is raised for the first time in this court. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co. , 183

F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).

Hansard also argues that the Louisiana State Police perpetrated a fraud u po n him and the

co urt , which created exceptional circumstances warranting review. Hansard relies on a letter

purportedly sent to him by the Louisiana State Police informing him that the currency was returned

to another person. Rule 60(b)(6) does not place a t ime limit on motions based on exceptional

circumstances. Because the exceptional circumstances upon which Hansard relies are based upon his

allegations of fraud, however, it is in the nature of a Rule 60(b)(3) motion, and it is untimely.

See Rule 60(b)(3). Therefo re, Hansard is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6). S ee Kerwit

Medical Products v. N. & H. Instruments , 616 F.2d 833, 837 n.8 (5th Cir. 1980).

Hansard argues that the notice published by the Government in a Louisiana newspaper was

not reasonably designed to give him notice of the forfeiture proceeding. We do not consider this

argument as it is raised for the first time in Hansard’s reply brief . See United States v. Prince , 868

F.2d 1379, 1386 (5th Cir. 1989).-3-

MOTION TO EXPAND THE RECORD GRANTED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7426

EMMETT W. CRESSELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN YOUNG, Wallens Ridge State Prison, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (CA-03-263-7) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 6, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emmett W. Cressell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Emmett W. Cressell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cressell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

LACEY POVRZENICH

v.

JENNIFER K. RIPEPI, M.D.; JENNIFER K. RIPEPI PEDIATRICS, LLC; FRANK G. DIETTINGER, M.D.; IMAGING

ASSOCIATES OF GREATER PITTSBURGH, LLC; AND MONONGAHELA

VALLEY HOSPITAL LACEY POVRZENICH, A MINOR, BY AND

THROUGH HER PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS, JANNA PALLOTTA AND

EDWARD POVRZENICH

v.

DAWN R. MCCRACKEN, M.D.; DAWN MCCRACKEN, M.D., P.C.; MONONGAHELA VALLEY HOSPITAL;

AND MON VALLEY COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES, INC.

PE TITION OF: MON VALLEY COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES, INC. :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 191 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

LACEY POVRZENICH, A MINOR BY AND

THROUGH HER PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS, JANNA PALLOTTA AND

EDWARD POVRZENICH

v.

DAWN R. MCCRACKEN, M.D., DAWN MCCRACKEN, M.D., PC.; MONONGAHELA :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 192 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court[ 191 WAL 2021 and 192 WAL 2021 ]

- 2

VALLEY HOSPITAL; AND MON VALLEY COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES, INC.

PETITION OF: MON VALLEY COMMUNITY

HEALTH SERVICES, INC. :

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of November, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

MANDATE

TO THE COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 4 OF DALLAS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, on the 30 th of April

, 2015 , the cause

on appeal to revise or reverse the judgment between

STEVE OROCIO, Appellant

No. 05

- 14

- 01505

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court

No. 4, Da llas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. M13

- 15128

- E.

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright,

Justices Myers and Brown participating.

was determined; and this Court made its order in these words:

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of

jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of the Court of Appeals

for the Fifth District of Texas, in this behalf, and have it duly obeyed and executed.

WITNESS the HON. CAROLYN WRIGHT, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, with

the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Dallas, this 10 th day of July, 2015.

LISA MATZ, Clerk
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

O

K

allo

Ino

Re

Rep

all 

Ino

sev

cau

Da

ORIONCLIC

v. 

KELVIN INO

On Mar

owing altern

ocent. (Dkt. 

commendati

port and Rec

On Apr

Defendants 

ocent and Ym

ven (7) days 

use why the 

IT IS S

ated: May 15

K LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

OCENT, et a

Defendants

rch 22, 2017

nate service o

No. 10.) On

ion recomme

commendati

ril 28, 2017, 

in this actio

ma Inocent, 

of this Orde

motion shou

SO ORDER

5, 2017 

UNITED

NORTHER

al., 

s. 

7, Plaintiff O

of the compl

n April 10, 2

ending that t

ion has been

Lawrence G

on. (Dkt. No

filed an answ

er, Plaintiff s

uld not be de

RED. 

D STATES D

RN DISTRIC

OrionClick L

laint and sum

2017, Magis

the motion b

filed. 

G. Townsend

o. 17.) On M

wer to the co

shall either w

enied as moo

___

JEF

Un

DISTRICT C

CT OF CALI

Case No. 1

ORDER T

PLAINTIF

ALTERNA

Re: Dkt. N

LLC (“Plainti

mmons on D

strate Judge J

be granted. (

d, Esq., filed

May 9, 2017, 

omplaint. (D

withdraw its 

ot. 

__________

FFREY S. W

nited States D

COURT 

IFORNIA 

17-cv-00644

TO SHOW C

FF'S MOTI

ATE SERV

No. 10 

iff”) filed a m

Defendants K

James issued

(Dkt. No. 13

d a notice of 

Defendants

Dkt. No. 18.)

motion for a

___________

WHITE 

District Judg

4-JSW 

CAUSE RE

ION FOR 

VICE 

motion seek

Kelvin Inocen

d a Report an

3.) No objec

appearance 

, including K

) According

alternate serv

__________

ge 

E

king an order

nt and Yma 

nd 

ction to the 

on behalf of

Kelvin 

gly, within 

vice or show

________ 

r

f

w

Case 3:17-cv-00644-JCS Document 19 Filed 05/15/17 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11962]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service


Gettysburg National Military Park/Eisenhower National Historic 
Site; Final Environmental Impact Statement, Deer Management Plan

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality Regulations and 
National Park Service Policy, the National Park Services (NPS) 
announces the May 26, 1995, release of the White-tailed Deer Management 
Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Gettysburg 
National Military Park/Eisenhower National Historic Site, Pennsylvania.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FEIS presents six alternatives with a 
preferred alternative identified for the future management of deer at 
these parks. Following a 30-day review period for the final document, 
the alternative selected for implementation will be stated in a public 
Record of Decision.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. John A. Latschar, Superintendent, 
Gettysburg National Military Park, 97 Taneytown Road, Gettysburg, PA 
17325 (717-334-1124).

    Dated: May 8, 1995.
Marie Rust,
Regional Director, Mid-Atlantic Region.
[FR Doc. 95-11962 Filed 5-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1511 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a 5-year extension 

of the credit for electricity produced from wind. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2005 

Mr. FOLEY (for himself, Mr. POMEROY, Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota, Mr. 

SMITH of Washington, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. SNYDER, Mr. 

ABERCROMBIE, Mr. HAYWORTH, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. INSLEE, Ms. 

HOOLEY, Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. 

BAIRD, Mr. SIMPSON, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. 

LANGEVIN, Mr. BONILLA, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. OTTER, Mr. WELLER, Mr. 

DOGGETT, Mr. MCCRERY, and Mr. SHERMAN) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

a 5-year extension of the credit for electricity produced 

from wind. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1511 IH 

1 SECTION 1. 5-YEAR EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR ELEC2 TRICITY PRODUCED FROM WIND. 

3 Section 45(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

4 1986 (relating to wind facility) is amended by striking 

5 ‘‘2006’’ and inserting ‘‘2011’’. 

Æ
Gardell COWART, petitioner, v. Jeffrey BEARD, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

No. 12-9213.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1606

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to exclude 

communications over the Internet from the definition of public communication. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2005

Mr. HENSARLING introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 

exclude communications over the Internet from the definition of public communication.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Online Freedom of 

5 Speech Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF PUBLIC COMMU7 NICATION. 

8 Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Elec9 tion Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amend-
2

•HR 1606 IH 

1 ed by adding at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘Such 

2 term shall not include communications over the Internet.’’.

Æ
JONATHAN PEEK

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 4479

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 9, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County

. Michael S. Sharrit , Judge

.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Jasmine Russell, Assistant Public Defender,

Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant Attorney General, and Virginia Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS

, WETHERELL

, and WINSOR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 VS. 

ANTHONY COLLEY 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CAUSE NO. 3:14-CR-66-RLM

O R D E R 

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations upon a plea of guilty on October 22, 2014. Accordingly, the 

court ADOPTS those findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 22), ACCEPTS 

defendant Anthony Colley’s plea of guilty, and FINDS the defendant guilty of 

Counts 4 and 5 of the Indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349. 

SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: November 13, 2014 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

 Judge 

 United States District Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Nov-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  Feb-28-1997
<CASH>                        1,078,204
<SECURITIES>                  000
<RECEIVABLES>                 000
<ALLOWANCES>                  000
<INVENTORY>                   000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              000
<PP&E>                        28,232,433
<DEPRECIATION>                10,728,627
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                18,739,034
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         424,919
<BONDS>                       8,400,528
<COMMON>                      000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         000
<PREFERRED>                   000
<OTHER-SE>                    9,913,587
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  18,739,034
<SALES>                       000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              900,013
<CGS>                         000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 420,177
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              276,067
<LOSS-PROVISION>              000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            185,246
<INCOME-PRETAX>               000
<INCOME-TAX>                  000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           000
<DISCONTINUED>                000
<EXTRAORDINARY>               000
<CHANGES>                     000
<NET-INCOME>                  18,523
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                 .21
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 98 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 27151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12614]



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


Commodity Futures Trading Commission

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 30, 1995.

PLACE: 2033 K St., NW., Washington, DC, 8th Floor Hearing Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-254-6314.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 95-12614 Filed 5-18-95; 3:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
Johnny Lee READER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6685.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

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