alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 27749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12548]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration


Applications for TIFIA Credit Assistance

AGENCY: Federal Transit Adminstration (FTA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:  Notice of availability of funds inviting applications for 
credit assistance for major surface transportation projects.

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

SUMMARY: Elsewhere in today's Federal Register the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) published a notice announcing the availability of 
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) 
assistance and inviting applicants to submit applications for credit 
assistance for major surface transportation project. The TIFIA 
authorizes the Department of Transportation (DOT) to provide credit 
assistance in the form of secured (direct) loans, lines of credit, and 
loan guarantees to public and private sponsors of eligible surface 
transportation projects. Highway, passenger rail, transit, and 
``intermodal'' projects (including intelligent transportation systems) 
may receive credit assistance under the TIFIA. Interested persons 
should review the FHWA Notice in today's Federal Register for further 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Paul Marx, Office of Policy 
Development (202) 366-1675, or Ms. Paula Schwach, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, (816) 523-0204.

(Authority: 23 U.S.C. 181-189; 49 CFR 1.51)

    Dated: Issued on May 14, 2001.
Hiram J. Walker,
Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-12548 Filed 5-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-M
Exhibit 32.2

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby
certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, the Form 10-Q Quarterly Report of NGA HoldCo, LLC (the Company) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |     |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 15, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ Roger A. May                     
|                        |  |     |  | Roger A. May                         
|                        |  |     |  | Manager
(Principal Financial Officer)
# C_2018341EN.01001301.xml

| 24.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/13

---

Order of the President of the Court of 21 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Pitești — Romania) — Maria-Cristina Dospinescu, Filofteia-Camelia Ganea, Petre Sinca, Luminița-Maria Ioniță, Maria Burduv, Raluca-Marinela Trașcă v Spitalul Județean de Urgență Vâlcea

(Case C-205/18) (1)

(2018/C 341/23)

Language of the case: Romanian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.

---
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 29156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13336]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel ACTION-A-CHF trial Investigating Outcomes, of 
Exercise Training.
    Date: June 19, 2001.
    Time: 2 to 5.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.
    Contact Person: Joyce A. Hunter, PhD, Review Branch, Room 7194, 
Division of Extramural Affairs, National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20872.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 22, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-13336 Filed 5-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
55 WATER STREET

DICC Data Repository ae

December 15, 2020

By Electronic Submission

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Secretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
1155 21* Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

DDR Rule Filing: DDR29

Re: Amendments to DTCC Data Repository (U.S.) LLC Fee Schedule for CFTC Reporting
(“Fee Schedule”) Pursuant to Section Sc(c) (1) of the Commodity Exchange Act and
Commission Regulation § 40.6

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, and Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (the “Commission”) Regulation § 40.6, DTCC Data Repository (U.S.) LLC
(“DDR”) submits, by written certification, amendments to the Fee Schedule for the period starting on
January 1, 2021.

The newly revised fee schedule continues to comply with CFTC Regulation § 49.27(b)(1), which
states that any fees or charges imposed by a registered SDR shall be equitable and established in a
uniform and nondiscriminatory manner. In addition to general edits to improve clarity and usability,
DDR has amended the Fee Schedule to reduce Position Maintenance Fees for the FX, Credit, Equity
and Interest Rate asset classes through the introduction of a new fee tier (tier 9).

DDR certifies that these amendments comply with the Commodity Exchange Act and the rules and
regulations promulgated by the Commission thereunder. No substantive opposing views have been
expressed by Users or others with respect to the amendments. DDR further certifies that, concurrent
with this filing today, a copy of this submission was posted on its website and may be accessed at:
https://www.dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings?subsidiary=DerivSER V &category=DTCC+Datat
Repository+US+LLC&pgs=1. DDR intends to implement this amended Fee Schedule on January 1,
2021.

As noted above, enclosed with this letter are a clean and marked copies of the Fee Schedule. If you
have any questions or need further information, please contact me at 813 470-1447.

Sincerely,
K ig

Director and Assistant General Counsel
Enclosures
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew A. CHAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-2787.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

June 16, 2006.

April M. Perry, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Abner J. Mikva, University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge, Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Andrew Chavis challenged his sentence of 420 months’ imprisonment in light of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), contending that the district court committed plain error in its application of the then-mandatory sentencing guidelines. Based on *United States v. Paladino,*401 F.3d 471, 483-84 (7th Cir.2005), we issued a limited remand to the Northern District of Illinois to determine whether it would impose the same sentence now that the guidelines are no longer mandatory.

The district court has responded that it would again impose the identical sentence of 420 months on Chavis *post-Booker.*Since Chavis’s sentence would remain the same, the *Booker*error did not affect Chavis’s substantial rights, and Chavis cannot show plain error. *See id.*at 484. We will therefore affirm as long as the sentence is reasonable. *See id.*

We invited the parties to file arguments regarding the appropriate disposition in light of the district court’s decision. Only Chavis responded to our invitation. As the sentence falls within the applicable guidelines range, it is presumptively reasonable. *United States v. Mykytiuk,*415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005). Chavis bears the burden of demonstrating that the sentence was unreasonable. *See id.*

Chavis argues that the district court improperly weighed the various factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when imposing his sentence. To make his point, Chavis relies on the relative brevity of the conspiracy in which he participated, personal factors such as his age and children, and the sentencing differential between powder and crack cocaine. Chavis does not carry his burden. While the district court imposed a stiff sentence, it considered the appropriate factors and sufficiently articulated the reasons for its actions on remand. Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s original sentence.
# C_2019220EN.01001301.xml

| 1.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/13

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo — Spain) — Telefónica Móviles España SAU (C-119/18), Orange España SAU (C-120/18), Vodafone España SAU (C-121/18) v Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central

(Joined Cases C-119/18 to C-121/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 6(1),and part A of the annex - Authorisation of electronic communications networks and services - Telecommunications operators - Operating in an area greater than an Autonomous Community - Annual financial contribution - Participation in the financing of the Corporación de Radio y Televisión Española)

(2019/C 220/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Telefónica Móviles España SAU (C-119/18), Orange España SAU (C-120/18), Vodafone España SAU (C-121/18)

Defendant: Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Central

Operative part of the order

Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), must be interpreted as meaning that an annual financial contribution, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, imposed on telecommunications companies operating in Spain that operate in an area greater than that of an Autonomous Community, for the purpose of participating in the financing of public broadcasting, does not fall within the scope of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---
Exhibit 32.2


CYCLE COUNTRY ACCESSORIES CORP.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with this Annual Report of Cycle Country Accessories Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2010 (the "Report"), I, Robert Davis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:


(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.


Dated: April 16, 2012/s/ Robert DavisRobert DavisChief Financial Officer
# C_2019399EN.01001201.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Trace Sport v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven

(Case C-251/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Commercial policy - Anti-dumping duties - Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia - Extension to those countries of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 - Validity - Admissibility - No action for annulment brought by the applicant in the main proceedings - Associated importer - Standing to bring an action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 13 - Circumvention - Article 18 - Non-cooperation - Proof - Body of evidence)

(2019/C 399/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Holland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Trace Sport

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane, kantoor Eindhoven

Operative part of the judgment

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not, is invalid in so far as it applies to imports of bicycles consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in that country or not.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

---
<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Stephan Kuppenheimer, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Merrill Lynch
Depositor, Inc., on behalf of PreferredPLUS Trust Series LMG-1;

         2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state
a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in
these reports;

         4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement
and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that
agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and trustee
have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

         5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
compliance by the depositor or trustee with the minimum servicing or similar
standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant,
after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling
or servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York and
its officers and agents.


Date:  March 29, 2005                     /s/ Stephan Kuppenheimer
                                         --------------------------------
                                          President
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-127656), relating to the 2005 Stock Option Plan of Houston American Energy Corp., on Form S-3 (File No. 333-134756), and on Form S-8 (File No. 333-151824), relating to the 2008 Equity IncentivePlan, of our report dated March 26, 2007 relating to the financial statements of Houston American Energy Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2006 that appear in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Houston American Energy for the year endedDecember 31, 2008. 

/s/ Ham, Langston & Brezina, L.L.P. 

(Formerly Thomas Leger & Co., L.L.P.) 

HOUSTON, TEXAS

March 16, 2009
# C_2017374EN.01003601.xml

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/36

---

Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Garriga Sadurní and Martí Fonts v SRB

(Case T-514/17)

(2017/C 374/54)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Antonia Elisenda Garriga Sadurní (Barcelona, Spain) and Josep María Martí Fonts (Barcelona) (represented by: E. Silva Pacheco, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, with effect ex tunc, thereby rendering it invalid and devoid of effects; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, with effect ex tunc, thereby rendering it invalid and devoid of effects;

| — | Order the payment of compensation to the applicants in the amount of EUR 500 000. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the payment of compensation to the applicants in the amount of EUR 500 000.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos

Single Resolution Board

Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL

Single Resolution Board

Comercial Vascongada Recalde

Commission and Single Resolution Board

García Suárez and Others

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Fidesban and Others

Single Resolution Board

Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda

Commission and Single Resolution Board

---
#### Regional Economic Community Action Program, Inc., Appellant, v Enlarged City School District of Middletown, Respondent.

Submitted December 5, 2011;

decided December 13, 2011

Reported below, 79 AD3d 723.

*830Motion by New York State School Boards Association, Inc. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
154 So. 601

#### McGILVRAY v. STATE.

4 Div. 766.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 10, 1934.

T. M. Patterson, of Clayton, for the motion.

Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., opposed.

Brief did not reach the reporter.

FOSTER, Justice.

The indictment in this case is in one count, and charges that defendant did “embezzle or fraudulently convert to his own use money to about the amount of $40.00.” It js not necessary to refer to its other provisions because they do not affect the question which is here material.

Section 4529, Code, requires that an indictment must state the facts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language!

The charge in an indictment that defendant “embezzled or fraudulently converted *554to his own use,” is one of a fraudulent intent unless a different meaning is otherwise ascribed by law to them,, and is descriptive of the offense. Ex parte Cowart, 201 Ala. 525, 78 So. 879; Id.,201 Ala. 55, 77 So. 349.

 When the indictment is thus framed, it is necessary in order to sustain it that there be proven either an embezzlement or a fraudulent conversion, taken in the ordinary meaning (section 4529, Code), or in such meaning as may be ascribed to them or either of them by statute. The ordinary meaning of “embezzlement or fraudulent conversion” is that a fraudulent intent is included. Ex parte Cowart, supra. But section 3961, C'Qde, makes embezzlement include certain conduct there definitely defined, which does not include a fraudulent intent. So that the charge of embezzlement includes the acts there specified. The indictment in this cause could be sustained by proving those acts, and the court did not err in submitting them to the jury as being included in. it.

Referring now to section 3974, Code, we note that it does not expressly declare that the acts enumerated are either embezzlement or fraudulent conversion. Subdivision 3 expressly makes fraud an element, but it and subdivision 2 have no application to this indictment. Subdivision 1 is substantially included in section 3961, and it is there defined as embezzlement. It is evident that subdivision No. 4 was intended to create a crime of the same description. Since the case of Ex parte Cowart, supra, was decided, section 3961, Code, was added. This addition may have been suggested by the Cowart Case. The court there held that an indictment describing an offense in the language of what is now section 3973 (6838) did not charge embezzlement since it did not include a fraudulent intent. It is not now necessary for us to say what was the effect of the addition of section 3961 upon that question. We are not now dealing with section 3973, but sections 3961 and 3974, which were added at the same time. We think that the crime “embezzlement” includes the acts mentioned in section 3961 and subdivisions 1 and 4 of section 3974.

The other matters submitted on this petition were either not treated by the Court of Appeals, or are obviously without merit.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. X, and GARDNER and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.