alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8141]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP94-21-002]


Northern Natural Gas Co.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

March 29, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 23, 1995, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), tendered for filing changes in its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth 
Revised Volume No. 1.
    Northern states that the changes were made in compliance with the 
Commission's Order issued in this proceeding on February 15, 1995, 
which are intended to reflect the reallocation of SBA costs as provided 
in the SBA Settlement, filed on September 12, 1994.
    Northern states that copies of this filing were served upon the 
company's customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol 
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C., 20426, in accordance with Sec. 385.211 
of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be 
filed on or before April 5, 1995. All protests will be considered by 
the Commission in determining the appropriate proceeding, but will not 
serve to make protestant a party to the proceedings. Copies of this 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8141 Filed 4-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-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





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of China Health Industries Holdings, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the “Report”), I, Xin Sun, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350), 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





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





/s/Xin SunXin
      SunChief
      Financial OfficerDate:  February
      14, 2011
H. R. 5110 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-three 

An Act 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to clarify that 

the prohibition on the use of Federal education funds for certain weapons does 

not apply to the use of such weapons for training in archery, hunting, or other 

shooting sports. 

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 ‘‘Protecting Hunting Heritage 

and Education Act’’. 

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL EDUCATION FUNDS FOR CERTAIN WEAPONS AND RELATED 

TRAINING. 

Section 8526(7) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7906(7)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, except 

that this paragraph shall not apply to the use of funds under 

this Act for activities carried out under programs authorized by 

this Act that are otherwise permissible under such programs and 

that provide students with educational instruction or educational 

enrichment activities, such as archery, hunting, other shooting 

sports, or culinary arts’’ before the period at the end. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5973

Apergy ESP Systems, LLC:

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 failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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

General Counsel
#### Cary Lee BAILEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 2-92-012-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.

March 3, 1993.

Rehearing Overruled March 31, 1993.

Discretionary Review Refused June 9, 1993.

Richard Alley, Fort Worth, for appellant.

Richard L. Hattox, Dist. Atty., Granbury, for appellee.

Before HILL, C.J., and FARRIS and HICKS, JJ.

OPINION

FARRIS, Justice.

Cary Lee Bailey appeals his conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon complaining the evidence was insufficient to prove the instrument he used in the assault was a deadly weapon. We overrule his point of error because the evidence was sufficient to show the instrument he used was adapted for the purpose of inflicting serious bodily injury. *See*TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 1.07(a)(ll)(A) (Vernon 1974).1

*387We affirm.

Bailey adapted the instrument used in the assault by placing an iron collar in a sock. The collar was intended by its manufacturer to secure weights to a bar as a part of a weight lifting set. Bailey assaulted his victim, Phillips, by swinging the weighted sock, as though it were a mace. According to Phillips, Bailey swung at him with the weighted sock four times striking him once in the back of the head. The doctor who examined Phillips and sutured his wound testified the collar was of sufficient weight to cause death or serious bodily injury to one who was struck by it.

Although both the collar and the sock were each manifestly designed for some purpose other than as a deadly weapon, in this instance Bailey combined the two and adapted them for only one purpose, use as a deadly weapon. *See Berry v. State,*833 S.W.2d 332, 334 (Tex.App.—Waco 1992, no pet.). Consequently no other proof of a deadly weapon was required. *See Thomas v. State,*821 S.W.2d 616, 620 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. Bailey was indicted under subsection (B) of § 1.07(a)(ll). However, the court’s charge sub*387mitted both subsections (A) and (B), and Bailey did not object. *See Berry v. State,*833 S.W.2d 332, 333 (Tex.App.—Waco 1992, no pet.).
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-2018-0025-5463

Bosch Rexroth: 

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
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 400 

To designate the headquarters building of the Department of Transportation 

located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, in Washington, DC, as the 

‘‘William T. Coleman, Jr., Federal Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2021 

Mr. WICKER (for himself, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. CARPER, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. 

SCOTT of South Carolina, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. WARNOCK, Mr. CASEY, Mr. 

TOOMEY, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. INHOFE, and Mr. BARRASSO) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To designate the headquarters building of the Department 

of Transportation located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 

SE, in Washington, DC, as the ‘‘William T. Coleman, 

Jr., Federal Building’’. 

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 ‘‘William T. Coleman, 

5 Jr., Department of Transportation Headquarters Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 400 IS

1 SEC. 2. WILLIAM T. COLEMAN, JR., FEDERAL BUILDING. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The headquarters building of the 

3 Department of Transportation located at 1200 New Jer4 sey Avenue, SE, in Washington, DC, shall be known and 

5 designated as the ‘‘William T. Coleman, Jr., Federal 

6 Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the building referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘William T. Coleman, 

11 Jr., Federal Building’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MURFREESBORO BANCORP FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,498
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 7,169
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     14,093
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           8,865
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             8,699
<LOANS>                                         56,566
<ALLOWANCE>                                        707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  93,105
<DEPOSITS>                                      75,385
<SHORT-TERM>                                     5,573
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                498
<LONG-TERM>                                      2,975
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,068
<OTHER-SE>                                         394
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  93,105
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,009
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,062
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   112
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,183
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,118
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,227
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,956
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      237
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   2
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,601
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    377
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         377
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       256
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    0.00
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   473
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        5
<RECOVERIES>                                         2
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  707
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               707
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Richard Allen BEDORE, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 65388.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

March 14, 1995.

*259Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for appellant.

William S. Margulis, Clayton, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, C.J., and REINHARD and CARL R. GAERTNER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Director of Revenue appeals the trial court’s judgment which sustained driver’s petition to review license revocation. This appeal is governed by our supreme court’s decision in *Jackson v. Director of Revenue,*893 S.W.2d 831 (Mo. banc 1995).

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 11.1


                                                 
         CYMER, INC.                             
        CALCULATION OF                           
      EARNINGS PER SHARE                         
  (in thousands, except per                      
         share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 
                                     Year Ended
                                  December 31, 1996
<S>                                    <C>
                                                                    
EARNINGS PER SHARE                               
                                                 
PRIMARY                                          
                                                 
Weighted average number of                       
common shares outstanding               9,935        
                                                 
Assumed exercise of                              
outstanding stock options and 
warrants (1)                            1,275        
                                                 
Weighted average common and                      
common equivalent shares               11,210        
                                                 
Net Income                             $6,510        
                                                 
Primary earnings per share              $0.58        
                                                 
FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                                 
Weighted average number of                       
common shares outstanding               9,935        
                                                 
Assumed exercise of outstanding                         
stock options and warrants (1)          1,631        
                                                 
Weighted average common and                      
common equivalent shares               11,566        
                                                 
Net Income                             $6,510        
                                                 
Fully diluted earnings per  
share                                   $0.56        
</TABLE>
                                                 
                 
(1) Computed using the treasury stock method.  See
    Note 1 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8570]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Earth Sciences Proposal Review Panel; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Earth Sciences Proposal Review Panel (1569).
    Dates and Times: April 26-28, 1995; 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Place: Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
    Type of meeting: Closed
    Contact person: Dr. Daniel F. Weill, Program Director, 
Instrumentation & Facilities Program, Division of Earth Sciences, 
Room 785, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA 22230, (703) 
306-1558.
    Purpose of meeting:  To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Instrumentation & Facilities 
proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: April 3, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-8570 Filed 4-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CAMBER ENERGY, INC.******

**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 Camber Energy, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank W. Barker, Jr., Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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 results of operations of the Company. |  |

 

| Date: May 19, 2022 |   | */s/ Frank W. Barker, Jr.*                                       |   |
|--------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|               |   | Frank W. Barker, Jr.

Principal Financial and Accounting Officer |   |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Kennedy, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously af*988firmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of sodomizing and then stabbing to death nine-year-old Melody Wilson. Following a bench trial, the court rejected defendant’s evidence that he lacked criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease (Penal Law § 40.15) and convicted him as charged. We reject defendant’s argument on appeal that the conviction for intentional murder is against the weight of the evidence. There was conflicting expert testimony on the issue of defendant’s mental state at the time of the crimes and the trier of fact is in the best position to resolve credibility issues *(see, People v Gruttola,*43 NY2d 116, 122). Here, although a different finding might not have been unreasonable, upon our review of the record we cannot conclude that the trier of fact failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495).

We further reject defendant’s argument that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his assigned attorney, to whom defendant confessed on the day after the murder, contacted police with information designed to help them find the little girl, who defendant indicated might still be alive. Any possible conflict was eliminated when the court suppressed all statements made by defendant to the attorney and his investigator, as well as all statements made by the attorney attributed to defendant, and the People agreed not to call the attorney as a witness or mention his involvement in the investigation when questioning other trial witnesses. Defendant was advised of a possible conflict early on and stated on several occasions that he wanted to continue to be represented by his assigned attorney. Moreover, the court appointed another defense attorney to act as cocounsel. This attorney provided conflict-free representation and never objected to the other attorney continuing his joint representation of defendant. Under these circumstances, we find that defendant received effective assistance.

Defendant was sentenced to serve an indeterminate term of 25 years to life on his conviction for murder in the second degree. Given the tragic results of defendant’s conduct, we decline to disturb the discretion of the sentencing court. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J.— murder, second degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.