alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63703-63704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30190]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-67-000]


Mojave Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

December 6, 1995.
    Take notice that on December 1, 1995, Mojave Pipeline Company 
(Mojave) tendered for filing a notice of tariff filing concerning 
natural gas services proposed to be rendered pursuant to Mojave's FERC 
Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1. Mojave is tendering revised 
tariff sheets for filing and acceptance to become effective January 1, 
1996.
    Mojave states that its proposed Tariff Sheets implement two, new 
``Hub Series,'' including Authorized Loan Service under Rate Schedule 
ALS-1 and Authorized Parking Service under Rate Schedule APS-1, to be 
provided by Mojave pursuant to its blanket transportation certificate 
under Part 284 of the Commission's Regulations. In addition, Mojave 
states that its filing includes modifications to the Operating 
Tolerances provisions set forth in Section 20 of the General Terms and 
Conditions of its tariff which provide for Imbalance Trading as a 
further operational accommodation available to firm and interruptible 
shippers on Mojave's system. Mojave proposes to 

[[Page 63704]]
change two-tiered rates for Authorized Loan Service and Authorized 
Parking Service consisting of a minimum $0.001/MMBtu and maximum 
$0.329/MMBtu ``First Day'' rate; and a minimum $0.001/MMBtu and maximum 
$0.1645/MMBtu ``Subsequent Day'' rate. Mojave further proposes to treat 
revenues derived from such services as interruptible transportation 
revenues for purposes of revenue allocations and crediting under Rate 
Schedule FT-1. Mojave purposes no separate rate for Imbalance Trading, 
except for a $0.02/MMBtu ``marketing fee'' which trading at the request 
of an affected shipper.
    Mojave states that copies of the notice were served upon all of 
Mojave's firm and interruptible transportation customers and all 
interested state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations. Pursuant to Section 154.210 of the Commission's 
Regulations, all such motions or protests must be filed not later than 
12 days after the date of the filing noted above. Protests will be 
considered by the commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding.
    Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30190 Filed 12-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Motion Granted; Order filed May 20, 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00777

- CR NO. 14

- 13

- 00776

- CR

____________ AKILLEON LARAN CHASE , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 1338722 & 1338723



### ORDER
Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appellant has made known to this Court his desire to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 73 8 (1967); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
Accordingly, we hereby direct the Judge of the 174th District Court to afford appellant an opportunity to view the trial record in accordance with local procedure; that the clerk of that co urt furnish the record to appellant on or before June 6, 2014 ; that theclerk of that court certify to this court the date on which delivery of the record to

appellant is made; and that appellant file his pro se brief with this court within thirty days of that date.

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit 34.2**

** **

**Report ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

** **

First Data Resources LLC and

REMITCO LLC

 

We have examined management’s****assertion, included in the accompanying Report onAssessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that FirstData Resources LLC and its affiliate, REMITCO LLC (jointly, First Data)complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of theSecurities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the remittance paymentplatform relating to the opening, listing, and depositing of remittancepayments mailed to post office boxes serviced by First Data (“the Platform”) asof and for the year ended December 31, 2007, except for****the criteria set forth in Sections 229.1122(d)(1)(i)-(iv),1122(d)(2)(i)-(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i)-(iii) and (v)-(xv),which First Data has determined are not applicable to the activities performedby them with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report.Management is responsible for First Data’s compliance with those servicingcriteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertionabout First  Data’s compliance with theservicing criteria based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted inaccordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute ofCertified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about First Data’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances.  Our examination includedtesting of less than all of the individual asset backed transactions andsecurities that comprise the platform, testing of less than all of theservicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether FirstData processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the servicing criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited tothe selected transactions and servicing activities performed by First Dataduring the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed todetermine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to ourtests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported byFirst Data during the period covered by this report for the selectedtransactions or any other transactions.****We believethat our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Ourexamination does not provide a legal determination on First Data’s compliancewith the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertionthat First Data complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of andfor the year ended December 31, 2007 for the remittance payment platformis fairly stated, in all material respects.

 
|                | /s/ Ernst &  Young LLP |
|---------------------|---------------------------------|
|                |
| Chicago, Illinois   |
| March 10, 2008 |

 

----
Motion Granted; Brief filed January 18, 2022 Stricken; and Order filed 

August 4, 2022 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00083-CR

____________

KENIA LASHAN WILKINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1536960

ORDER

Appellant’s brief includes charging documents as attachments, in association 

with a witness who testified during appellant’s trial. Those documents reference a 

victim’s date of birth and the address and date of birth of the witness. The State has 

filed a motion requesting redaction of these references. The motion is GRANTED 

and the brief is STRICKEN.

Appellant is ordered to file a brief within 10 days of the date of this order that 

does not include unredacted references to a victim’s date of birth and the witness’s 

address and date of birth.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Hassan.
Exhibit 99.4
 
 
 CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Annual Report (the “Report”) on the Form 10-K of Siga Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended July 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Rohit Singh, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2.     The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 
 Date: October 20, 2009
 
 
 ROHIT SINGH
 Rohit Singh
 Chief Accounting Officer,
 Chief Financial Officer and Director
 
 
 
 
 -1-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

SCOTT MICHAEL PATRICK, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-35867 

D.C. Nos. 6:16-cv-01218-MC 

6:98-cr-60099-MC-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2019**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Federal prisoner Scott Michael Patrick appeals from the district court’s order 

denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, see United States v. Reves, 774 F.3d 

562, 564 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 21 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-35867 

Patrick contends that the district court improperly denied his section 2255 

motion as untimely. He asserts that his section 2255 motion is timely because he 

filed it within one year of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), a

decision which he contends applies to the mandatory career offender Sentencing 

Guidelines provision, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, under which he was sentenced. This 

argument is foreclosed because “Johnson did not recognize a new right applicable 

to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines on collateral review.” United States v. 

Blackstone, 903 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2762 

(2019). Contrary to Patrick’s argument, our decision in Blackstone is not “clearly 

irreconcilable” with United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). See Miller v. 

Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Accordingly, the district 

court properly concluded that section 2255(f)(3) does not apply and Patrick’s 

motion is untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). 

In light of this disposition, we do not reach the parties’ remaining 

arguments. 

The government’s motion for summary affirmance is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5730 

To make nine month foreclosure and eviction protections for servicemembers 

permanent, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2014 

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

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To make nine month foreclosure and eviction protections 

for servicemembers permanent, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. NINE MONTH PROTECTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF 

4 UNIFORMED SERVICES RELATING TO MORT5 GAGES, MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE, AND 

6 EVICTION MADE PERMANENT. 

7 (a) REPEAL OF REVIVAL PROVISION.—Section 

8 710(d) of the Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring 

9 for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 (Public Law 112– 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5730 IH

1 154; 126 Stat. 1208) is amended by striking paragraph 

2 (3). 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-11967

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DONOVAN EXUME, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cr-60268-WPD-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-11967 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 04/05/2023 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 22-11967

Before BRANCH,GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Donovan Exume appeals his 181-month total sentence for 

carjacking, brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of 

violence, attempted Hobbs Act robbery, and attempted carjacking. 

The government has filed a motion to dismiss Exume’s appeal 

based on the sentence appeal waiver in his plea agreement. 

Exume’s appeal waiver is enforceable, as the record shows 

that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and 

none of the waiver exceptions apply. See United States v. Bushert, 

997 F.2d 1343, 1350–51 (11th Cir. 1993). The Government’s 

motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in 

Exume’s plea agreement is therefore GRANTED. 

USCA11 Case: 22-11967 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 04/05/2023 Page: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5714 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5714

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 3, 2014

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 
                        Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To permit commercial applicators of pesticides to create, retain, 
  submit, and convey pesticide application-related records, reports, 
            data, and other information in electronic form.

    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 ``Pest Management Records 
Modernization Act''.

SEC. 2. USE OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS BY COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS OF 
              PESTICIDES TO COMPLY WITH RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING 
              REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 1491 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act 
of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 136i-1) is amended by adding at the end the following 
new subsection:
    ``(h) Electronic Recordkeeping and Reporting.--Notwithstanding any 
contrary provision of Federal, State, or local law, commercial 
applicators of pesticides, including commercial applicators of 
restricted use pesticides, may create, retain, submit, and convey a 
pesticide application-related record, report, data, or other 
information in electronic form in order to satisfy any requirement for 
such creation, retention, submission, or conveyance, respectively, 
under any Federal, State, or local law.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 2, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
### NUMBER 13 - 15 - 00122 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

BAY CITY, TEXAS Appellant,

v. WADE MCFARLAND, Appellee.

On appeal from the 23rd District Court of Matagorda County, Texas.



## ORDER OF ABATEMENT Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes Order Per Curiam On August 3, 2016, the Matagorda County District Clerk forwarded to this Court a compact disc , which appellant purported to include in its plea to jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment as Exhibit

- C. Appellant and appellee do not dispute that Exhibit

C shows the dash

- cam video of Officer Kimberly Kunz’s police vehicle on June 5, 2011

.2

However, the compact disc forwarded to this Court is bl ank . The current state of the record raises a que stion regarding whether Exhibit

- C has been lost or destroyed.
Tex as Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(e) provides as follows: If a filing designated for inclusion in the clerk's record has been lost or destroyed, the parties may, by written stipulation, deliver a copy of that item to the trial court clerk for inclusion in the clerk's record or a supplement. If the parties cann ot agree, the trial court must

— on any party's motion or at the appellate court's request

— determine what constitutes an accurate copy of the missing item and order it to be included in the clerk's record or a supplement.
T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 34.5(e).
T his appea l is ABATED and the cause REMANDED to the trial court

. Upon remand, the trial court shall conduct a hearing to determine first whether the compact disc forwarded to this Court is the same item that appellant attached to its motion as Exhibit

C ; if the compact disc is the same item , the trial court shall make that finding on the record
and no furth er inquiry will be necessary. However , if the compact disc is not the same item, the trial court shall use whatever means necessary to locate the original and forward it to this Court as a supplement to the clerk’s record . I f the original cannot be found , the
trial court shall afford appellant and appellee an opportunity , by written stipulation, to deliver a copy of that item to the tri al court clerk for inclusion as a supplement to the clerk’s
record ; i f appellant and appellee cannot agree, the trial court shall determine what constitutes an accurate copy of Exhibit

- C and order it to be included as a supplement to the clerk’s record

. S ee id

. The trial court shall prepare and file its findings and orders and cause them to be3

included in a supplemental clerk's record which should be submitted to the Clerk of this Court within fifteen days from the da te of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed this 2nd day of September , 2016
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, StephenLinehan, certify that:

 

1.             Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-Kof Capital One Auto Finance Trust 2007-A (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.             Basedon my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.             Basedon my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.             Basedon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this reportunder Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.             Allof the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to beincluded in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB andExchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit tothis report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any materialinstances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed inthis report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:****The Bank ofNew York, First Data Resources, Inc., REMITCO, LLC. and FDI ComputerConsulting, Inc..

 

Date: March 27,2008

 
|   | By:    | /s/Stephen  Linehan                 |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Stephen  Linehan*                   |
|   | Title: | Treasurer                           |
|   |   | Capital One  Auto Receivables, LLC. |
|   |   |
|   |   |
|        |        |                                     |  |

----

| *Stephen  Linehan is the senior officer in charge of securitization of Capital One Auto  Receivables, LLC. |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 14, 2014

Order 

October 14, 2014

149955(58)

JEFFREY CULLUM,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

FREDERICK LOPATIN, D.O.,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

DEARBORN EAR, NOSE AND THROAT 

CLINIC P.C.,

Defendant.

SC: 149955

COA: 313739

Wayne CC: 10-007013-NH

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the defendant-appellant to extend the 

time for filing his reply brief in this application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The 

reply brief will be accepted as timely filed if filed on or before October 20, 2014.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

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 the Quarterly Report of Washington Banking Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michal D. Cann, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of the Company
     as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.

This certification is being furnished solely to comply with the requirements of
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any of
the Company's filings under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise be deemed to be filed as part of the Report
or under such Acts.


/s/ Michal D. Cann
-------------------------------------
Michal D. Cann
Chief Executive Officer

November 8, 2006