alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 2970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-769]



[[Page 2970]]


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


KeyCorp; Notice of Application to Engage de novo in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The company listed in this notice has filed an application under 
Sec.  225.23(a)(1) of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.23(a)(1)) 
for the Board's approval under section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding 
Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(c)(8)) and Sec.  225.21(a) of Regulation Y 
(12 CFR 225.21(a)) to commence or to engage de novo, either directly or 
through a subsidiary, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in Sec.  
225.25 of Regulation Y as closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, such activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    The application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing on the question whether consummation of the proposal can 
``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as 
greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, 
that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of 
resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or 
unsound banking practices.'' Any request for a hearing on this question 
must be accompanied by a statement of the reasons a written 
presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, identifying 
specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, summarizing the 
evidence that would be presented at a hearing, and indicating how the 
party commenting would be aggrieved by approval of the proposal.
    Comments regarding the application must be received at the Reserve 
Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than 
January 26, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (John J. Wixted, Jr., Vice 
President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101:
    1. KeyCorp, Cleveland, Ohio; to engage de novo through its 
subsidiary, KeyCorp Finance, Inc., in making, acquiring, and servicing 
loans pursuant to Sec.  225.25(b)(1) of the Board's Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 6, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-769 Filed 1-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  Exhibit 10.3.6

                         AMENDMENT #5 TO CONTRACT 00117

                      ELECTRONIC LOTTERY TICKET DISPENSERS

1.    Contract 00117 between the Missouri Lottery and On-Point Technology
      Systems shall be renewed for the period of July 1, 1997 through June 30,
      1998 subject to the acceptance of this amendment by the Missouri Lottery.

2.    All other terms and conditions of the contract shall remain in effect,
      except as modified by any other agreements and/or amendments.


/s/ Brian J. Roberts                        6/9/97
-------------------------------------       ---------------
Contractor's Authorized Signature           Date
SR. VP MARKETING & ADMINISTRATION


-------------------------------------       ---------------
Missouri Lottery Authorized Signature       Date
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 497 

To eliminate the COVID–19 vaccine mandate on health care providers 

furnishing items and services under certain Federal health care programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 25, 2023 

Mr. DUNCAN (for himself, Mrs. RODGERS of Washington, Mr. MASSIE, Mr. 

DUNN of Florida, Mr. DONALDS, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. MOOLENAAR, Mr. 

WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. POSEY, Mr. BALDERSON, Mr. JOHNSON

of Louisiana, Ms. MACE, Mr. CLOUD, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. 

CARL, Mr. ELLZEY, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mrs. GREENE of Georgia, Mr. 

LATTA, Ms. VAN DUYNE, Mr. TIMMONS, Mr. ARMSTRONG, Mr. 

RESCHENTHALER, Mr. PFLUGER, Mr. PERRY, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, 

Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. HUDSON, Mr. GUTHRIE, Mr. RUTHERFORD, Mr. JACKSON of Texas, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. CRENSHAW, Ms. 

STEFANIK, Mr. BUCSHON, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BIGGS, Mrs. BOEBERT, Mr. 

MAST, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. NORMAN, Ms. MALLIOTAKIS, Ms. TENNEY, Mr. 

BERGMAN, Mr. BURGESS, Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS, Mr. GUEST, Mr. PALMER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. ARRINGTON, Mr. FRY, Mr. OGLES, Mr. MCCORMICK, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina, Mrs. LUNA, Mrs. 

HARSHBARGER, Mr. MOORE of Alabama, Mr. MILLER of Ohio, and Mr. 

FERGUSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To eliminate the COVID–19 vaccine mandate on health care 

providers furnishing items and services under certain 

Federal health care programs. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 497 IH

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 ‘‘Freedom for Health 

5 Care Workers Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIMINATING THE COVID–19 VACCINE MANDATE ON 

7 HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS FURNISHING 

8 ITEMS AND SERVICES UNDER CERTAIN FED9 ERAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS. 

10 The Secretary of Health and Human Services may 

11 not implement, enforce, or otherwise give effect to the rule 

12 entitled ‘‘Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Omnibus 

13 COVID–19 Health Care Staff Vaccination’’ published by 

14 the Department of Health and Human Services on No15 vember 5, 2021 (86 Fed. Reg. 61555) and may not pro16 mulgate any substantially similar rule. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Shoe Carnival, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending February 3, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark L. Lemond, President and 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 results of operations of the Company.
|  

|Date: April 11, 2007 | By:                     | /s/ Mark L. Lemond | 
|-------------------- | ----------------------- | ------------------ | 
|                     | Mark L. Lemond          |                   
|                     | President and           |                   
|                     | Chief Executive Officer |                   



---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,332
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,074
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         149,824
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,676)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 151,644
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        105,753
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            29
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   151,644
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,701
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,435
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,089
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (698)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (698)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)




</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 7524

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CHARLES FRANKLIN BROWN , Defendant

– Appellant.

.

No. 16
- 7525

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CHARLES FRANKLIN BROWN , Defendant

- Appellant.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Harrisonburg

. Michael F. Urbanski , District Judge. ( 5:13

- cr - 00017

- MFU

- RSB

- 1 ; 5:15

- cv - 80868

- MFU

- RSB; 5:13

- cr - 00030

- MFU

- RSB

- 5 ; 5:15

- cv - 80869

- MFU

- RSB )

Submitted : March 31, 2017 Decided: April 11, 20172 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Charles Franklin Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia ; Craig Jon Jacobsen, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia ; Drew Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, Charles Franklin Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealab le unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2 012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion stat es a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss these consolidated appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7604]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy


National Electric and Magnetic Fields Advisory Committee; 
Reestablishment

    Pursuant to section 14(a)(2)(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act and in accordance with title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
Section 101-6.1015, and following consultation with the Committee 
Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, notice is 
hereby given that the National Electric and Magnetic Fields Advisory 
Committee has been reestablished for a 2-year period. The Committee 
will provide advice to the Secretary of Energy and the Director of the 
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
    The reestablishment of the National Electric and Magnetic Fields 
Advisory Committee has been determined to be essential to the conduct 
of the Department's business and to be in the public interest in 
connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department 
of Energy by law. The Committee will operate in accordance with the 
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of 
Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91), and rules and regulations 
issued in implementation of those Acts.
    Further information regarding this Advisory Committee can be 
obtained from Rachel Murphy Samuel at (202) 586-3279.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 20, 1995.
JoAnn Whitman,
Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-7604 Filed 3-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-M
#### Gordon E. INMAN, d/b/a Inman Realtors, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. R.C. ALEXANDER and Doris Alexander, Defendants/Appellants.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Section, at Nashville.

Aug. 4, 1993.

Permission to Appeal Denied by Supreme Court Feb. 7, 1994.

David H. King, King & Turnbow, William Carter Conway, Alexander, Conway & Williams, Franklin, for defendants/appellants.

Edward P. Silva, R.E. Lee Davies, Hart-zog, Silva & Davies, Franklin, for plaintiff/ap-pellee.

*OPINION*

CANTRELL, Judge.

This is a dispute over the ability to collect interest on a judgment after it is modified on appeal and remanded. In accordance with our decision in *Inman v. Inman,*840 S.W.2d 927 (Tenn.App.1992), we hold that the interest sought is post-judgment interest and may be collected according to Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-14-121 from the date specified in the opinion remanding the case.

On February 22, 1991, the appellee, Gordon Inman, obtained a judgment against the appellants, R.C. and Doris Alexander, in the amount of $150,000. In an opinion filed on January 15, 1992, this court modified the judgment to $100,000 and provided that prejudgment interest could be collected from the date of the breach of the underlying contract to the date of the entry of the judgment below. The opinion was silent as to post-judgment interest.

On May 29, 1992, the appellants paid the judgment into the court plus the pre-judgment interest. Mr. Inman filed a motion in the court below to be allowed to collect post-judgment interest from the date of the original judgment. On October 3,1992, the lower court granted the motion.

The appellants rely on Tenn.RApp.P. 41, the last sentence of which provides: “If a judgment is modified or reversed with a direction that a judgment for money be entered in the trial court, the mandate shall contain instructions with respect to allowance of interest.”

This provision has been the source of some confusion in the state and federal courts. *154But, in *Inman v. Inman,*840 S.W.2d 927, 932 (Tenn.App.1992), this court solved one part of the puzzle by holding that Rule 41 did not affect the statutory post-judgment interest provided in Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-14-121. Thus, when a judgment is rendered in the trial court originally or by direction from the appellate courts, the statute provides that the judgment shall automatically accrue interest at the statutory rate unless the court specifies that “its action requires that interest be computed other than as required by statute.” *Inman,*840 S.W.2d at 932.

The opinion remanding the case directed the entry of a judgment in the lower court for $100,000 as of the date of the original judgment and provided that prejudgment interest should be paid from the date of the original breach to that time. In our opinion nothing more was required to put into effect the accrual of post-judgment interest from the date of the original judgment until the judgment is finally paid.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed and the cause is remanded to the Chancery Court of Williamson County *for*any further proceedings. Tax the costs on appeal to the appellants.

TODD, P.J., and LEWIS, J., concur.
*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 6, 2009

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ERNEST JOHN YOUNG, also known as

Jason Aaron Presley,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 08-4144

v. (D. Utah)

ELVIS A. PRESLEY; LISA PRESLEY;

ELVIS PRESLEY, INC.; PATRICIA

LANTERN, Doctor at University of Utah

Hospital; JANET MOFFIT, Judge at

Industrial Commission of Utah; GARY

STOTT, Judge at Fourth District Court,

Defendants - Appellees.

(D.C. No. 2:08-CV-00281-TS)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRISCOE, MURPHY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this court has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
1

In this appeal, Young does not challenge the district court’s disposition of

his claims of entitlement to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, it is unnecessary

to determine whether Young is entitled to a certificate of appealability. See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing no appeal may be taken from a final order

disposing of a § 2254 petition unless the petitioner first obtains a COA). 

-2-

Plaintiff-Appellant, Ernest John Young filed a complaint invoking 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he asserted claims involving

allegations of kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, libel, slander, defamation,

incarceration, rape, and extortion. Young’s allegations evolve from his central

assertion that he is the biological son of Elvis Presley and the father of triplets

kidnapped by defendant Lisa Presley from the University of Utah hospital. See

also Presley v. Presley, 102 Fed. App’x 636 (10th Cir. 2004). The district court

concluded these claims were frivolous. The court also concluded Young was not

entitled to relief under § 2254 because his complaint failed to allege facts that

would support a finding his constitutional rights have been violated by his

incarceration. Accordingly, the district court dismissed Young’s complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

The matter is before this court on Young’s appeal from the district court’s

order of dismissal.1

 Having reviewed the record, Young’s brief, and the
-3-

applicable law, we can discern no reversible error by the district court. 

Accordingly, the dismissal of Young’s complaint is affirmed for substantially the

reasons stated in the district court order dated July 14, 2008. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4875

Horizon Hobby LLC: 

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/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5505

Tianhai Electric North America:

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 concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

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