alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12859]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-583-831]


Certain Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: 
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Extension of Time Limit For Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Administrative Review.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is extending 
the time limit for the preliminary results of the antidumping 
administrative review on certain stainless steel sheet and strip in 
coil from Taiwan.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Bailey or Rick Johnson, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1102 or (202) 482-3818, 
respectively.

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are 
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective 
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the Act'') by 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results

    On January 12, 2001, we published an extension of the preliminary 
results by 90 days. See 66 FR 2884. Because of the complex issues 
enumerated in the Memorandum from Edward C. Yang to Joseph A. Spetrini, 
Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Administrative 
Review of Certain Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan, 
on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) of the Main Commerce 
Building, Room B-099, we find that it is not practicable to complete 
this review by the scheduled deadline of July 1, 2001. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is 
extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review 
until July 31, 2001.

    Dated: May 14, 2001.
Robert M. James,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III.
[FR Doc. 01-12859 Filed 5-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**233 KA 12-00585**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JIMMY VELASQUEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (DEBORAH K. JESSEY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JIMMY VELASQUEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DAVID A. HERATY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell P. Buscaglia, A.J.), entered February 1, 2012. The order denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside his sentence.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In this postconviction proceeding, defendant appeals from an order denying his motion to set aside his sentence pursuant to CPL 440.20. The challenged sentence was imposed in 2007, after defendant pleaded guilty to attempted burglary in the second degree. On that offense, Supreme Court sentenced defendant as a persistent violent felony offender to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 12 years to life. One of the two predicate offenses was entered in 1999. In 2010, pursuant to Penal Law § 70.85, defendant was resentenced on that predicate offense because his initial sentence did not include a term of postrelease supervision. In the instant motion, defendant asserted that, because the sentence on the 1999 judgment was vacated in 2010, it could not serve as a predicate offense in 2007 for the determination that he was a persistent violent felony offender. Supreme Court denied the motion, and we now affirm.

After we granted defendant leave to appeal herein, the Court of Appeals expressly stated that “a resentencing to correct the flawed imposition of PRS does not vacate the original sentence and replace it with an entirely new sentence, but instead merely corrects a clerical error and leaves the original sentence, along with the date of that sentence, undisturbed” ( People v Boyer , 22 NY3d 15, 24; see People v**-2- 233 KA 12-00585** 

Hall , 124 AD3d 795, 796; People v Miller , 118 AD3d 1463, 1464, lv denied 24 NY3d 1003). Because defendant was lawfully sentenced on the predicate offense in question before he was convicted of the offense for which he was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender, “it qualifies as a prior [violent] felony conviction” ( People v Wood
, 115 AD3d 613, 613, lv denied 22 NY3d 1204). We thus conclude that the court properly denied defendant’s motion.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions, including the contention set forth in his pro se supplemental brief, and conclude that they lack merit.

Entered: March 27, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit
32.2


Certification
of Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) of United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund, LP
(the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, I, Howard Mah, the Chief Financial Officer of United States
Commodity Funds LLC, General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the
best of my knowledge, 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
Registrant.





Date:
      November 15, 2010
            By:
            /s/ Howard
      MahName:
              Title:
            Howard
      Mah
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              United
      States Commodity Funds LLC,
              General
      Partner of United States 12 Month Natural Gas Fund,
  LP
exv10w2









Exhibit 10.2




AMENDMENT TO


RETIREMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE




     THIS AMENDMENT is entered into as of this 31st day of August, 2010, by and between
STEVEN C. FUTRELL, an individual, for and on behalf of himself and his successors, heirs, family
and assigns (“Futrell”) and CROGHAN BANCSHARES, INC., a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Ohio (“Croghan”);



     WHEREAS, Futrell and Croghan entered into a Retirement Agreement and General Release dated
December 14, 2009 (the “Agreement”);



     WHEREAS, Futrell and Croghan wish to amend the Agreement in certain respects to clarify
certain benefits thereunder.



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:



     1. Paragraph 3 shall be deleted in its entirety and the following shall be substituted
therefor:




	 	 	For the period beginning on September 1, 2010 and ending on October
31, 2010, Futrell will continue to participate in Croghan’s group
health plan at no cost to him. For the period beginning on
September 1, 2010 and ending on February 29, 2012, Croghan will pay
to Futrell a monthly amount equal to the COBRA premium (in effect
for each such month) for an individual to continue participation in
Croghan’s group health plan (the “COBRA Premium”). Such monthly
payment may be used by Futrell either to (a) offset the monthly
premium required for his spouse to continue her participation in
Croghan’s group health plan, or (b) pay toward the purchase of an
individual health insurance policy for his spouse. For the period
beginning March 1, 2012 and ending October 31, 2012, Croghan will
pay to Futrell as a contribution toward the purchase of an
individual health insurance policy for Futrell’s spouse a monthly
amount equal to the lesser of (c) $1,200, and (d) twice the COBRA
Premium. Notwithstanding any provision contained in this paragraph,
Croghan’s obligations hereunder shall cease upon the earlier of (e)
October 31, 2012, and (f) the death of Futrell’s spouse.





     2. Paragraph 4 shall be amended by deleting “December 1, 2010” and by substituting “November
1, 2010” therefor.



 









 








     3. Paragraph 5 shall be deleted in its entirety and the following shall be substituted
therefor:




	 	 	Beginning on September 1, 2010, Futrell will continue to be covered
under any bank owned life insurance policy maintained by Croghan on
Futrell’s life as of the Retirement Date. Effective September 1,
2010, the provisions of any such policies shall be amended to
provide that the aggregate death benefit payable to Futrell’s
designated beneficiary shall be equal to Two Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($200,000).
	 
	 	 	Signed as of this 31st day of August, 2010.





Witness:




	 	 	 	 	 

	/s/ Pamela J. Swint	 	/s/ Steven C. Futrell
	 	 	 
	 	 	Steven C. Futrell
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	CROGHAN BANCSHARES, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ James E. Bowlus
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Director/Chair Compensation Committee
#### In re Victor M. CROWN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant.

No. 13-1962.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted July 1, 2013.

Decided July 18, 2013.

Amended July 23, 2013.

Victor M. Crown, Jr., Park Ridge, IL, pro se.

Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge and JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge.

*565ORDER

This pro se appeal is unintelligible. To the extent that we can comprehend this appeal, we consider it to be redundant and frivolous. Accordingly, we DISMISS Crown’s appeal. We warn Crown that the court sanctions litigants who file frivolous papers. *Alexander v. United States,*121 F.3d 312 (7th Cir.1997).
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15
- 7742

TITO LAMONT ANDERSON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:15

- hc

- 02061

- FL )

Submitted : November 17, 2017 Decided: January 8, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Tito Lamont Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tito Lamont Anderson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudic e his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Anderson relies on the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) (2012) to challenge his career offender designation, but we have “not extended the reach of the savings clause to those petitioners challenging only their
sentence.” United States v. Poole , 531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008). As such, Anderson fail s to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) is an inadequate or ineffecti ve means of challenging the validity of his detention. See Rice v.
Rivera , 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010). We thus conclude that the district court properly dismissed without prejudice Anderson’s § 2241 petition. Accordingly, we affirm for the reaso ns stated by the district
court. See Anderson v. Andrews , No. 5:15

- hc

- 02061

- FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 15, 2015). We grant Anderson leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequatel y presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Motion Granted; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 27, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-12-00061-CR

NO. 14-12-00062-CR

NO. 14-12-00063-CR

____________

DONALD RAY BEATY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 258th District Court

Polk County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 21589, 21665, & 21,940

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant entered guilty pleas, without agreed recommendations on punishment, to 

two charges of possession of methamphetamine, and a single charge of evading arrest. 

The trial court sentenced appellant on December 6, 2011, to confinement in the 

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for ten years in each 

case, with the sentences to be served concurrently. A written request to withdraw the 

notice of appeal, personally signed by appellant, has been filed with this court in each case. 
2

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this court has not delivered an opinion, we grant 

appellant’s motions.

Accordingly, we order the appeals dismissed. We direct the clerk of the court to 

issue the mandates of the court immediately.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Jamison and McCally.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Interim Decision #3344

In re Alex OSEIWUSU, Respondent

File A72 537 754 - San Pedro

Decided March 25, 1998

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals

(1) An alien who arrives in the United States pursuant to a grant of advance parole is an

“arriving alien,” as that term is defined in the federal regulations. 

(2) According to the regulations, an Immigration Judge has no authority over the apprehension, custody, and detention of arriving aliens and is therefore without authority to consider the bond request of an alien returning pursuant to a grant of advance parole.

Pro se

Before: Board Panel: HEILMAN, COLE, and MATHON, Board Members.

HEILMAN, Board Member:

This is a timely appeal from an Immigration Judge’s bond redetermination decision. The request for oral argument before the Board is denied.

8 C.F.R. § 3.1(e) (1997). The request for a waiver of the appeal fee is

granted. The decision of the Immigration Judge will be vacated and the

record will be returned to the Immigration Court.

The respondent last arrived in the United States in April of 1996. At

the time he returned to the United States, the respondent was an applicant

for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and

Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (1994), based on his marriage to a citizen of the United States. The respondent was paroled into the United

States upon his arrival pursuant to a grant of advance parole.

The federal regulations define an “arriving alien” as follows: “The

term arriving alien means an alien who seeks admission to or transit

through the United States . . . . An arriving alien remains such even if

paroled pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act.” 62 Fed. Reg. 10,312,

10,330 (1997) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. § 1.1(q)) (interim, effective Apr.

1, 1997). Given the fact that the respondent was paroled into the United

19
Interim Decision #3344

States, he falls within the definition of an “arriving alien.”

Pursuant to the regulations, an Immigration Judge has no authority

over the apprehension, custody, and detention of arriving aliens. 62 Fed.

Reg. 10,312, 10,361 (1997) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(c)(5)(i))

(interim, effective Apr. 1, 1997). Moreover, arriving aliens cannot avail

themselves of the review process provided in the regulations. Id.; see also

62 Fed. Reg. 10,312, 10,361 (1997) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d))

(interim, effective Apr. 1, 1997)(describing the review process).

Therefore, because the Immigration Judge had no authority over the

apprehension, custody, and detention of arriving aliens, consideration of

the respondent’s bond request was improper. 

Accordingly, the decision of the Immigration Judge will be vacated,

and the record will be returned to the Immigration Court for any further

action, as necessary.

ORDER: The Immigration Judge’s decision is vacated, and the

record is returned to the Immigration Court.

20
# C_2018052EN.01004403.xml

| 12.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/44

---

Order of the General Court of 18 December 2017 — Verband der Deutschen Biokraftstoffindustrie v Commission

(Case T-451/17) (1)

1

(2018/C 052/60)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.

1

---
Thomson Reuters (SEF) LLC

3 Times Square

New York, NY 10036

May 23, 2018

Submitted Via Portal

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

Re: Submission 18-01: Thomson Reuters (SEF) LLC – Amendments to Rulebook

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) Regulation 40.6(a), 

Thomson Reuters (SEF) LLC (“TR SEF”) hereby self-certifies the amendments to its Rulebook 

identified in Exhibit A. The Rulebook has been amended in order to clarify certain points in TR 

SEF Chapter 5. The amended Rulebook will become effective on June 7, 2018.

A concise explanation and analysis of the amendments to the Rulebook and their compliance 

with applicable provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “CEA”) is attached hereto 

as Exhibit A, and the amendments showing changes against the version submitted to the 

Commission in Submission 17-05 on December 1, 2017, is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

TR SEF hereby certifies that: (i) the amended Rulebook complies with the CEA and the 

Commission’s regulations thereunder, and (ii) a notice and copy of this submission is being 

concurrently posted on TR SEF’s website. No substantive opposing views were expressed with 

respect to the amendments to the Rulebook.

Please contact me using the information below if you have any questions regarding these 

amendments to the Rulebook.

Wayne Pestone

1333 H Street, NW

Suite 700

Washington, DC 20005 

Phone: (202) 377-7975

Email: wayne.pestone@thomsonreuters.com
2

Sincerely,

Wayne Pestone

Chief Compliance Officer

cc: Nancy Markowitz, Deputy Director, Division of Market Oversight, Exchange and Data 

Repository Branch

Roger Smith, Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight

(Commodity Futures Trading Commission)
A-1

EXHIBIT A

Explanation and Analysis of Material Amendments

Summary: The Rulebook has been amended in order to clarify a certain point in TR SEF 

Chapter 5. The amendments showing changes against the version submitted to the Commission 

in Submission 17-05 on December 1, 2017, is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in 

the Rulebook.

Amendment and Explanation Relevant Law, Regulation or 

Guidance

Rule 511

Amended language to specify information regarding Orders 

made available to Participants in accordance with the 

provisions of SEF Rule 1206

Core Principle 5
B-1

EXHIBIT B

Rulebook Amendments
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

APRIL 8 , 2014

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

WD76017 Jarvis T. Williams vs. State of Missouri

WD76238 Elaina Marie Sansone (Formerly Elaina Marie Fulton) vs.

William Hudnall

WD76545 Matt

- Ryan Properties, LLC D/B/A Essex Place Apartments

vs. Missouri Departme nt of Labor and Industrial Relations

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

WD76160 State of Missouri vs. DeAnthony C. Griddine

WD76213 State of Missouri vs. Betty G. Deshotels
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001046131
<NAME> MIDAS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-27-1999
<CASH>                                          24,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,600
<INVENTORY>                                     70,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               163,800
<PP&E>                                         251,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                 110,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 330,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,700
<BONDS>                                        111,500<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,100
<OTHER-SE>                                      93,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   330,900
<SALES>                                         84,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                84,700
<CGS>                                           44,900
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,200<F2>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (500)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,500
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.37
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES: CAPITALIZED LEASE OBLIGATIONS AND LONG-TERM DEBT OF $9,900 AND
$101,600, RESPECTIVELY.
<F2>INCLUDES: COST OF GOODS SOLD AND S, G & A EXPENSES OF $44,900 AND $27,300,
RESPECTIVELY.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION
 
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of TheraBiogen, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
 
 (1)    The quarterly report on form 10-q / a of the Company for the annual period ended August 31, 2010 (“the Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
 
 (2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 Dated: March 16, 2011
By:
/s/ Kelly T. HickelKelly T. Hickel

Chief Executive Officer

Principal Accounting Officer
 
 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.