alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 139 (Friday, July 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 39022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15807]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meetings; Notice of Change in Subject Matter of 
Agency Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of subsection (e)(2) of the ``Government 
in the Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(2)), notice is hereby given 
that at its open meeting held at 10:01 a.m. on Tuesday, July 20, 2021, 
the Corporation's Board of Directors determined, on motion of Director 
Martin J. Gruenberg (Appointive), seconded by Director David Uejio 
(Acting Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), and concurred 
in by Director Michael J. Hsu (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), and 
by Chairman Jelena McWilliams, that Corporation business required the 
deferral of an item on the agenda for consideration at the meeting, on 
less than seven days' notice to the public, of the following matter:

    Memorandum and resolution re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 
Revisions to Standardized Approach for Calculating the Exposure 
Amount of Derivative Contracts.
    The Board further determined, by the same majority vote, that no 
notice earlier than July 20, 2021, of the change in the subject 
matter of the meeting was practicable.

    Dated this the 20th day of July, 2021.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
James P. Sheesley,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15807 Filed 7-21-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50173 Summary Calendar

NICOLAS LONDONO, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus LESTER E. FLEMING, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-97-CV-182

- - - - - - - - - - December 1, 1998 Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Nicolas Londono, federal prisoner # 43758-066, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and was sentenced to 120-months of incarceration, the result of a two-level enhancement in offense level because his coconspirator carried a weapon in furtherance of the conspiracy. Londono enrolled in and successfully completed the residential drug abuse treatment program at the prison. The program provides for a sentence reduction of up to one year for inmates whose offense of conviction was nonviolent. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). TheNo. 98-50173 -2- Bureau of Prisons (BOP) concluded that Londono was not eligible for the sentence reduction because his sentence for the narcotics offense had been enhanced for carrying a weapon. Londono filed an application for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging this action of the BOP. Without serving the respondent either with the suit or the judgment, the district court granted Londono habeas relief by ordering the BOP to consider him a nonviolent offender for the purpose of determining his eligibility for the one-year sentence reduction. R. 61-66. On motion of the respondent, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), the district court vacated the original judgment and ultimately denied relief under Venegas v. Hennman , 126 F.3d 760, 761 (5th Cir. 1997). The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Rule 60(b) relief to the respondent. See Carimi v. Royal Carribean Cruise Line, Inc. , 959 F.2d 1344, 1345 (5th Cir. 1992); Hester Int’l. Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria , 879 F.2d 170 (5th Cir. 1989). Additionally, this court in Venegas addressed Londono’s contentions and held that the BOP’s "exclusion of . . . drug convictions with enhanced sentences due to possession of a weapon from eligibility for early release after substance abuse treatment is consistent with the Bureau’s authority." Venegas , 126 F.3d at 763-64. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Londono’s motion to supplement the record is DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
# C_2020287EN.01003301.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/33

---

Order of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Golden Omega v Commission

(Case T-846/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff nomenclature - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 287/52)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Golden Omega, SA (Santiago, Chili) (represented by: S. Moolenaar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and M. Salyková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1661 of 24 September 2019 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2019 L 251, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Golden Omega, SA is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Golden Omega, SA is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.

---
# C_2020175EN.01001801.xml

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Gwo Chyang Biotech v EUIPO — Norma (KinGirls)

(Case T-85/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark KinGirls - Earlier German word mark King - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 175/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gwo Chyang Biotech Co. Ltd (Tainan City, Taiwan) (represented by: J. Kakoures, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: W. Schramek, A. Söder and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2018 (Case R 718/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. and Gwo Chyang Biotech.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gwo Chyang Biotech Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gwo Chyang Biotech Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3561-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-3561-EM), dated July 4, 2021, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued July 9, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of July 4, 2021.

Baker, Bradford, Clay, Duval, Nassau, Putnam, and Union Counties for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance and reimbursement for mass care including evacuation and shelter support.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2021-15620 Filed 7-21-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 806 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 806

     To require the Secretary of the Army to conduct levee system 
evaluations and certifications on receipt of requests from non-Federal 
                               interests.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 13, 2011

Mr. Baucus (for himself and Mr. Tester) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To require the Secretary of the Army to conduct levee system 
evaluations and certifications on receipt of requests from non-Federal 
                               interests.

    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 ``Rural Community Flood Protection Act 
of 2011''.

SEC. 2. RURAL COMMUNITY FLOOD PROTECTION.

    (a) In General.--On receipt of a request from a non-Federal 
interest, the Secretary of the Army (referred to in this section as the 
``Secretary'') shall conduct a levee system evaluation and 
certification of a federally authorized levee or a non-federally 
authorized levee for purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program 
established under chapter 1 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
(42 U.S.C. 4011 et seq.).
    (b) Requirements.--A levee system evaluation and certification 
under subsection (a) shall--
            (1) at a minimum, comply with the requirements of section 
        65.10 of title 44, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on 
        the date of enactment of this Act); and
            (2) be carried out in accordance with such procedures as 
        the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of the Federal 
        Emergency Management Agency, may establish.
    (c) Cost Sharing.--
            (1) Non-federal share.--Subject to paragraph (2), the non-
        Federal share of the cost of carrying out a levee system 
        evaluation and certification under this section shall be 35 
        percent.
            (2) Adjustment.--The Secretary shall adjust the non-Federal 
        share under paragraph (1) to zero if--
                    (A) the non-Federal interest is located in an area 
                with a population of 10,000 or fewer individuals; or
                    (B) the division of the non-Federal interest with 
                responsibility for the applicable levee is staffed by 
                individuals operating on a volunteer basis.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kertais Major, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), rendered June 21, 1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and attempted assault in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant concedes in his brief that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support his conviction of manslaughter in the first degree. He argues, however, that his conviction on the two assault counts cannot be sustained because the People failed to disprove his defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, however, as we must, we find that defendant’s guilt of these counts was proven beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, *cert denied*— US —, 105 S Ct 327; *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620). There is simply no reasonable view of the evidence that would support *595a defense of justification *(see, People v Alston,*104 AD2d 653). Defendant’s failure to retreat when he was able to do so, and the number of stab wounds sustained by both victims, negates the essential elements of the defense *(see,*Penal Law § 35.15 [2] [a]; *People v Doctor,*98 AD2d 780, 781; *People v Alston, supra; People v Collice,*41 NY2d 906, 907).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.
amend5.htm




February 4, 2009









Mr. Ken Chymiak, President and Chief Executive Officer

ADDvantage Technologies Group, Inc.

1221 East Houston

Broken Arrow, OK 74012





Re: 5th Amendment to Revolving Credit and Term Loan Agreement





Dear Mr. Chymiak:





     This letter agreement shall constitute the fifth amendment to the revolving credit and term loan agreement by and between ADDvantage Technologies Group, Inc. (“Borrower”) and Bank of Oklahoma, N.A. (“Lender”) dated September 30, 2004, as amended September 30, 2005, September 30, 2006, November
20, 2006, and November 27, 2007 (collectively referred to as the “Agreement”).  Additional reference is made to the International Swap Dealers Association, Inc Master Agreement dated as of September 28, 2004 (“ISDA”).





     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual convenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:






	
1.  
	
The aggregate outstanding principal amount of advances under the $7,000,000 Revolving Line at any time outstanding shall not exceed the lesser of (i) $7,000,000 less the Exposure as defined in the Credit Support Annex Paragraph 12 of the ISDA to the extent that it exceeds $900,000 or (ii) the Borrowing
Base less the Exposure as defined in the Credit Support Annex Paragraph 12 of the ISDA to the extent that it exceeds $900,000.






 


	
  
	
2.   All provisions, terms, and conditions of the Agreement except as herein amended remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed.








If the foregoing set forth your agreement with Lender, please sign in the spaced provided below.





Sincerely,





By:       /s/ Matt Crew

   Matt Crew

Its:       Vice President





Agreed and accepted to as of the 6th day of February, 2009.





“Borrower”





ADDvantageTechnologies Group, Inc.





By:       /s/ Ken Chymiak

   Ken Chymiak, President & Chief Executive Officer
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-10570
BOBBY DON COOK, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS; TOM WILDER, District Clerk of Tarrant County, Texas Defendants-Appellees

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Consolidated w/No. 09-10571 PETER HINOJOSA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS; TOM WILDER, District Clerk of Tarrant County, Texas Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas-Fort Worth Division

No. 4:08-CV-00316-A Before JONES, Chief Judge, and BENAVIDES and PRADO, Circuit Judges. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 1, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce ClerkNo. 09-10570, cons. w/No. 09-10571

* 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. 2 PER CURIAM: * The court has carefully considered these consolidated cases in light ofthe briefs, oral argument and pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, we find no reversible error of law or fact and affirm essentially for the reasons stated by the district court. AFFIRMED

.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1331
THOMAS T. SCAMBOS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMPUTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INCORPORATED; AL DEMAGNUS; SHARON DEMAGNUS; ROSENBERG, PROUT,FUNK & GREENBERG; EUGENE FUNK; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, jointly and severally, in their individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA97-3288-PJM) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 21, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Thomas T. Scambos, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Gerard Joseph Gaeng, Shawn Jeffrey Sefret, ROSENBERG, PROUTT, FUNK & GREENBERG, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland; Alvin Ira Frederick, ECCLESTON & WOLF, Baltimore, Maryland; Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Albert David Copperthite, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying his employment discrimination and civil rights action. 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. Scambos v. Computer Mgmt. Servs., Inc. , No. CA-97-3288-PJM (D. Md. Jan. 30, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-90,521-01

EX P ARTE JOSE ADOLP HO CASTIL LO, App licant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1301318 IN THE 228 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 9 6 7 ). Applicant was convicted of the offense of capital murde r and se ntence d to imprisonment for life without parole. On April 6, 2018, an order desig nating issues was signe d by the trial court. The habea s
re cord has been proper ly forwa rded to this Court by the district cler k pursuant to T E X . R
. A P P . P
. 73.4(b)( 5). Howeve r, t h e re co rd h as been forwa rded without the trial court having resolved the desig nated issue(s) in this case . We rema nd this applica tion to the 228 District Court of Har ris t h County to allow the trial judge to complete an evidentiar y investiga tion and enter finding s of fac t andconclusions of law
.

This application will be held in abey ance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s o f t h i s o rd er. A supplemental transcr ipt containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hear ing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this order. A ny extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court. Filed: Dec ember

11, 2019 Do not publish
# C_2022284EN.01003201.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/32

---

Order of the General Court of 1 June 2022 — Del Valle Ruiz and Others v SRB

(Case T-512/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Economic and monetary policy - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español - No ex post definitive valuation of Banco Popular Español - Lack of direct concern - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 284/40)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Antonio Del Valle Ruiz (Mexico City, Mexico) and the 36 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: B. Fernández García, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: J. King and E. Muratori, acting as Agents, assisted by H.-G. Kamann, F. Louis, C. Schwedler, P. Gey, V. Del Pozo Espinosa De Los Monteros, G. Barthet and J. Krämer, lawyers)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of the ‘decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) not to carry out an ex post definitive valuation of Banco Popular Español, SA, communicated to the applicants by letter of 20 May 2019’.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Antonio Del Valle Ruíz and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Antonio Del Valle Ruíz and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.

---