alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6586]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 2535-003--GA]


South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.; Notice of Availability of 
Draft Environmental Assessment

March 13, 1995.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) 
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Hydropower Licensing has reviewed the application for a new license 
for the Stevens Creek Hydroelectric Project, located on the Savannah 
River near Augusta, Georgia; in Columbia County, Georgia; and Edgefield 
and McCormick Counties, South Carolina; and has prepared a Draft 
Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the project. In the DEA, the 
Commission's staff has analyzed the potential environmental impacts of 
the existing project and has concluded that approval of the project, 
with appropriate environmental protection or enhancement measures, 
would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the 
quality of the human environment.
    Copies of the DEA are available for review in the Public Reference 
Branch, Room 3104, of the Commission's office's at 941 North Capitol 
Street N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this 
notice and should be addressed to Lois D. Cashell, Secretary, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426. Please affix ``Stevens Creek Hydroelectric 
Project No. 2535'' to all comments. For further information, please 
contact John Blair at (202) 219-2845.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-6586 Filed 3-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 26, 2011

h0919 

# Order

September 26, 2011

142775

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142775 COA: 294496 MICHAEL CARR JASPER, Berrien CC: 2008-412460-FH Defendant-Appellant. 2008-412461-FH

___________________ ______________________/ 2008-412475-FH

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 25, 2011 judgment the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>



                                                                  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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bright Horizons Family Solutions,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Elizabeth J. Boland, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
           15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
           of the Company.

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.



                                            /s/ Elizabeth J. Boland
                                            ------------------------------------
                                             Elizabeth J. Boland
                                             Chief Financial Officer

May 10, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-7403

EMMETT MADISON GRAHAM, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.

James C. Fox, Senior District Judge.

(CR-97-98, CA-00-206-7-F)

Submitted: January 31, 2002

Decided: February 25, 2002

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Emmett Madison Graham, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Paul Martin Newby,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Emmett Madison Graham, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying in part and granting in part his motion filed under 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. In his

informal brief, Graham attempts to make several new claims of error

regarding the district court’s jurisdiction over the original criminal

offenses. Because he failed to raise these claims in his 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 motion before the district court, this court may not now consider their merits. See United States v. One 1971 Mercedes Benz, 542

F.2d 912, 915 (4th Cir. 1976). Because Graham does not raise any

claims in his informal brief that he raised below he has waived review

of the claims. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (claims raised in the district court

but not addressed in the brief on appeal are waived for review). To

the extent that Graham’s informal brief can be construed as attacking

his conviction and sentence under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000), the district court correctly found that the claims are

barred by our decision in United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139 (4th

Cir.), cert denied, 70 U.S.L.W. 3339 (U.S. Nov. 13, 2001) (No. 01-

6715). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Graham’s motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2 UNITED STATES v. GRAHAM
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-597]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[PS-72-92]
RIN 1545-AR23


Definition of Qualified Electric Vehicle, and Recapture Rules for 
Qualified Electric Vehicles, Qualified Clean-Fuel Vehicle Property, and 
Qualified Clean-Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property; Hearing Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed 
regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of cancellation of a public 
hearing on proposed regulations relating to the definition of qualified 
electric vehicle, the recapture of any credit allowable for a qualified 
electric, and the recapture of any deduction allowable for qualified 
clean-fuel vehicle property or qualified clean-fuel vehicle refueling 
property.

DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for Thursday, January 
19, 1995, beginning at 10 a.m. is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Savage of the Regulations Unit, 
Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), (202) 622-8452 (not a toll-free 
number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject of the public hearing is 
proposed regulations under sections 30 and 179A of the Internal Revenue 
Code. A notice of proposed rulemaking and public hearing appearing in 
the Federal Register for Friday, October 14, 1994, (59 FR 52105), 
announced that the public hearing on the proposed regulations would be 
held on Thursday, January 19, 1995, beginning at 10 a.m., in the 
Internal Revenue Service Auditorium, Seventh Floor, 7400 Corridor, 
Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, D.C.
    The public hearing scheduled for Thursday, January 19, 1995, is 
cancelled.
Cynthia E. Grigsby
Chief, Regulations Unit Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 95-597 Filed 1-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Consent ofIndependent Certified Public Accountants

 

 

 

 

M-Systems, Inc.

Newark, California

 

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the previously filed Registration Statement onForm S-8 (No. 333-54356) of M-Systems Flash Disk Pioneers Ltd. (the "Company")of our report dated January 8, 2003, relating to the financial statements of M-Systems,Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company) appearing in the Company`sAnnual Report on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2002. 

 

 

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

BDO Seidman, LLP

 

San Jose, California

November 7, 2003

 

**____ 1 ____**
<PAGE>
[ KPMG LETTERHEAD]


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Corvas International, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-45607) on Form S-8, as amended, and (No. 333-1762) on Form S-3, as amended,
of Corvas International, Inc. of our report dated February 4, 1999, except as to
Notes 10 and 11 of the financial statements which are as of March 11, 1999,
relating to the balance sheets of Corvas International, Inc. as of December 31,
1998 and 1997, and the related statements of operations, stockholders' equity,
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1998, which report appears in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K
of Corvas International, Inc. We also consent to the reference to our firm under
the heading "Selected Financial Data" in the December 31, 1998 annual report on
Form 10-K.


                                                                        KPMG LLP
San Diego, California
March 29, 1999
Order entered January 4, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00962-CR

No. 05-18-00963-CR

RANDAL BERNADO ROGERS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F08-25417-R & F08-25425-R

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 2, 2019 second motion for an extension of time to 

file appellant’s brief. We GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER the brief filed no later than 

February 4, 2019. Appellant is cautioned that the failure to file a brief by that date may result in 

these appeals being abated for the trial court to make findings in accordance with rule of 

appellate procedure 38.8. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2).

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                  [LETTERHEAD OF BANK OF AMERICA APPEARS HERE]


March 27, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20549


Ladies and Gentlemen:

Arthur Andersen LLP (Andersen) has audited the financial statements of Cross
Timbers Royalty Trust as of December 31, 2001, and Andersen has represented to
Bank of America, N.A., Trustee, that:

   .    the audit was subject to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S.
        accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that
        the engagement was conducted in compliance with professional
        standards, and

   .    there was appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working
        on the audit, and

   .    there was availability of national office consultation to conduct the
        relevant portions of the audit.

Sincerely,


/s/ RON E. HOOPER
----------------------------------
Ron E. Hooper
Senior Vice President
exv10w4






Exhibit 10.4




TERMINATION AGREEMENT




     This TERMINATION AGREEMENT dated as of July 4, 2011 (this “Agreement”) is by and among
Southern Union Company, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), Energy Transfer Equity,
L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Parent”), and Eric D. Herschmann
(“Consultant”).



     Reference is made to that certain Non-Competition, Non-Solicitation and Confidentiality
Agreement dated as of June 15, 2011 by and among the Company, the Parent and Consultant (the
“Non-Compete Agreement”). Pursuant to Section 14(e) of the Non-Compete Agreement, the
Company, the Parent and Consultant wish to amend and, at the same time, terminate the Non-Compete
Agreement.



     Accordingly, the Company, the Parent and Consultant hereby agree as follows:



     SECTION 1. Termination. Effective as of the date hereof, the Non-Compete Agreement
shall immediately terminate.



     SECTION 2. Release of Claims. Each party hereto does, for itself and for its
successors and assigns, hereby agree to waive, release, relinquish and forever release the other
parties hereto and their successors and assigns of and from all obligations, covenants, agreements,
promises, claims, demands, liabilities and causes of action whatsoever set forth in or arising
under the Non-Compete Agreement.



     SECTION 3. Amendment. This Agreement may not be amended or any provision hereof
waived or modified except in writing signed by each of the parties hereto.



     SECTION 4. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to
the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.



     SECTION 5. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in
accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, regardless of the laws that might otherwise
govern under applicable principles of conflicts of laws thereof.



     SECTION 6. Execution of Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the parties
hereto in separate counterparts (or upon separate signature pages bound together into one or more
counterparts), each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but all such
counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed
signature page to this Agreement by facsimile transmission shall be effective as delivery of a
manually executed counterpart hereof.



[signature page follows]






 









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the date first written
above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ John W. McReynolds
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	John W. McReynolds 	 
	 	 	Title:  	President and Chief Financial Officer 	 
	 
	 	SOUTHERN UNION COMPANY

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ George Lindemann
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	George Lindemann 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Chairman and CEO 	 
	 
	 	Eric D. Herschmann

 	 
	 	/s/ Eric D. Herschmann
 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 



[Signature page to the Termination Agreement (Non-Compete)]
#### Joseph David LANE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 680-89.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

June 28, 1989.

Jeff Blackburn, Amarillo, for appellant.

Randall L. Sherrod, Dist. Atty., John L. Davis, Asst. Dist. Atty., Canyon, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted for possession of cocaine on his plea of guilty, and was placed on 10 years probation and fined $1,000.00. The conviction was affirmed. *Lane v. State,*768 S.W.2d 871 (Tex.App.Amarillo 1989). Appellant filed a petition for discretionary review claiming that the Court of Appeals erred by holding that he did not have standing to contest the search.

We have considered the issues raised and find that the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction. The petition for discretionary review will be refused.

As is true in every case where this Court refuses a petition for discretionary review, this refusal does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the Court of Appeals. See *Sheffield v. State,*650 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).

With this understanding, appellant’s petition for discretionary review is refused.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2535

Reelcraft Industries:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT ON REMAND

Thomas Elijah Atkins

, * From the 91s t District Court

of Eastland County,

Trial Court No. 2 4281

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 35 5

- CR * July 8 , 20 2 1

The State of Texas

, * Memorand um Opinion by Williams, J.

(P anel consists of: Trotter , J.,

Williams , J. , and Wright

, S.C. J.

, sitting by assignment)

(Bailey, C.J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

we modify the judgment of the trial court to delete the fine of $2,000 and the time

payment fee of $25, and we affirm the judgment as modified.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-1972

GHL International, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
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
   (i)
    
    The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
  /s/ Michael J. RossMichael J. Ross
President and Chief Executive Officer,
Dearborn Bancorp, Inc.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4265 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase and provide an 

inflation adjustment for the limitation on distributions from qualified 

tuition programs that may be used for elementary and secondary tuition. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 19 (legislative day, MAY 17), 2022 

Mr. KENNEDY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

and provide an inflation adjustment for the limitation 

on distributions from qualified tuition programs that may 

be used for elementary and secondary tuition. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Inflation-Adjusted 

5 Education Investment Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4265 IS

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE ON LIMITATION ON EXPENSES USED FOR 

2 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY TUITION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The last sentence of section 

4 529(e)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘$10,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$12,000’’. 

6 (b) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—Section 529(e)(3) of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 

8 at the end the following new subparagraph: 

9 ‘‘(C) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.— 

10 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any 

11 taxable year beginning in a calendar year 

12 after 2022, the $12,000 amount in sub13 paragraph (A) shall be increased by an 

14 amount equal to— 

15 ‘‘(I) such dollar amount, multi16 plied by 

17 ‘‘(II) the cost-of-living adjust18 ment determined under section 1(f)(3) 

19 for the calendar year in which the tax20 able year begins, determined by sub21 stituting ‘calendar year 2021’ for ‘cal22 endar year 2016’ in subparagraph 

23 (A)(ii) thereof. 

24 ‘‘(ii) ROUNDING.—Any increase deter25 mined under clause (i) shall be rounded to 

26 the nearest multiple of $500.’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4265 IS

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2021. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB