alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8416]




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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Geological Survey


Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC); Public Meeting of the 
FGDC Coordination Group

AGENCY: Geological Survey, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is to invite public participation in a meeting of 
the FGDC Coordination Group. Major topics for the meeting include 
fostering partnerships to promote the development of the National 
Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), and devising strategies to 
effectively involve the broad geospatial data community in the actions 
and decisions of the FGDC.


TIME AND PLACE: May 10, 1995, from 1:30 p.m. until 4 p.m. The meeting 
will be held in Room Potomac 5, the Hyatt Regency, Crystal City, 2799 
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Snyder, FGDC Secretariat, U.S. Geological Survey, 590 National 
Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 22092; telephone 
(703) 648-5514; facsimile (703) 648-5755; Internet <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a1c1c1c6c5c2e1d4d2c6d28fc6ced7">``<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="deb9babd9eabadb9adf0b9b1a8">[email protected]</span></a>''.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FGDC is a committee of Federal agencies 
engaged in geospatial data activities. The FGDC Coordination Group 
oversees the FGDC subcommittees and working groups that address the 
establishment of standards for data content, quality, and transfer; 
encourages the exchange of information and the transfer of data; and 
organizes the collection of geographic data to reduce duplication of 
effort. This meeting of the FGDC Coordination Group will follow the 
1995 National GeoData Forum being held at the same location. A primary 
focus of the Forum is to involve the entire geospatial data community 
in building partnerships for the development of the NSDI.

    Dated: March 28, 1995.

James R. Plasker,

Associate Chief, National Mapping Division.

[FR Doc. 95-8416 Filed 4-5-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-31-M

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          36,875
<SECURITIES>                                    12,296
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,929
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,665
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         675,821
<DEPRECIATION>                                 123,649
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 980,347
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          122,744
<BONDS>                                        599,086
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            28
<OTHER-SE>                                     242,562
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   980,347
<SALES>                                         77,960
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,960
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,161
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,728
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,071
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,921
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    328
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,593
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36



</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL 

CAPACITY, BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE OF LSF10 MASTER 

PARTICIPATION TRUST,

Appellant,

v.

ADRIA SEELEY and ERIC ESPICH,

Appellees.

No. 4D2023-1868

[July 17, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Indian River County; Janet C. Croom, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

2022CA000132.

Steven J. Brotman of Locke Lord LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Leo W. Desmond of Desmond Law Firm, P.C., Vero Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The bank appeals an order denying its request for mortgage foreclosure 

due to lack of standing. The bank argues that it proved standing to 

foreclose based on its status as holder of the note. We agree. “[S]tanding 

may be established from a plaintiff’s status as the note holder, regardless 

of any recorded assignments.” McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l

Ass’n, 79 So. 3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). “[U]nder the Uniform 

Commercial Code, a plaintiff is not required to be both the owner and 

holder of the note in order to have standing to foreclose. . . . Instead, the 

plaintiff may establish standing by showing that it owns or holds the note, 

or is otherwise entitled to enforce the note.” Aquasol Condo. Ass’n v. HSBC 

Bank USA, Nat’l Ass’n, 312 So. 3d 105, 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (emphasis 

added) (citations omitted). “[T]he mortgage security follow[s] the note.” 

Am. Central Ins. Co. of St. Louis, Mo. v. Whitlock, 165 So. 380, 382 (Fla. 

1936). Thus, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent 

with this opinion. 

Reversed and remanded.
2

CIKLIN, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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-2018-0025-6644

Nissan North America, Inc:

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6576

Johnson Level & Tool Mfg. Co, Inc:

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 this particular product is available 

only from China.

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
18666 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 12, 1995 / Sunshine Act Meetings

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[USITC SE–95–09]

TIME AND DATE: April 26, 1995 at 2:30

p.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street S.W.,

Washington, DC 20436.

STATUS:

1. Agenda for future meeting.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Inv. Nos. 731–TA–696–698 (Final)

(Magnesium from China, Russia, and

Ukraine)—briefing and vote.

5. Outstanding action jackets:

1. ID–95–012, Institution of section 332

investigation on Global Competitiveness of

U.S. Environmental Technology Industries:

Air Pollution Prevention and Control.

In accordance with Commission

policy, subject matter listed above, not

disposed of at the scheduled meeting,

may be carried over to the agenda of the

following meeting.

Issued: April 7, 1995.

By order of the Commission:

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–9096 Filed 4–10–95; 12:12 pm]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Capital Management, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Joseph T. Drennan, Treasurer 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; 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/
  Joseph T. Drennan


Joseph
      T.
      Drennan


Treasurer
      (Principal Financial Officer)


September
      15, 2006







The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed
      filed
      by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to liability under that Section.
      This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into
      any
      filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act except to the extent
      that this certification is expressly incorporated by reference into any such
      filing.
#### Roy L. LACKEY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Elizabeth CARSON, Defendant/Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Western Section at Nashville.

March 25, 1994.

Application for Permission to Appeal Denied by Supreme Court Sept. 6, 1994.

Roy L. Lackey, pro se.

Wallace W. Dietz, Bass, Berry & Sims, Nashville, for defendanffappellee.

FARMER, Judge.

Appellant, Roy L. Lackey, appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12.02(6) T.R.C.P.

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff is an inmate in a state penal institution as a result of having entered into a plea bargain involving a charge of sexual offense against the defendant’s daughter. The defendant is Plaintiff’s former wife. The complaint, consisting of some twenty-eight (28) pages plus exhibits, contains a lengthy recitation of the parties’ marital problems and prior litigation. However, the gravamen of the complaint is a civil action alleging that the defendant committed perjury and conspired with others to commit perjury before the parole board when Plaintiff came up for parole. The law in this jurisdiction does not recognize a civil action for perjury or conspiracy to commit perjury. *Medlock v. Ferrari,*602 S.W.2d 241, 245 (Tenn.App.1979); 20 Tenn.Jur., *Perjury*§ 2 (1985).

Appellant further contends that the chancellor erred by not allowing him to appear in open court to argue against dismissal. The record before us does not indicate whether or not such was the case. However, since he was incarcerated, we will assume for purpose of his argument that his request was denied. However, whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted is a test of the sufficiency of the leading pleading. “Nothing said in argument on such a motion can add to or take from the complaint. It must stand or fall upon its allegations unaffected by the approbation of its author or the denunciations of the defense, as expressed in oral argument.” *Cornpropst v. Sloan,*528 S.W.2d 188, 190 (Tenn.1975). The trial court has the authority to dismiss a complaint *sua sponte*in the absence of a motion to dismiss when the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. *Huckeby v. Spangler,*521 S.W.2d 568 (Tenn.1975). The court should construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff, taking all of the allegations of fact therein as true. *Sullivant v. Americana Homes, Inc.,*605 S.W.2d 246 (Tenn.App.1980).

*233Appellant has listed additional issues in his •brief which we find to be without merit, particularly in view of our affirmance of the chancellor’s order of dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and the costs of this appeal are taxed to Roy L. Lackey, for which execution may issue if necessary.

CRAWFORD and HIGHERS, JJ., concur.
#### John HICKS, Defendant-Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent.

No. 63342.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 31, 1993.

Dave Hemingway, St. Louis, for defendant-movant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., F. Martin Dajani, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*393ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, John Hicks, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The judgment of conviction sought to be vacated was for stealing a motor vehicle for which movant was sentenced on his plea of guilty to imprisonment for three years.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6900

Sears Holdings Management Corporation:

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
**EXHIBIT 31.02**

**Rule13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications**

I, Barbra E. Kocsis, Chief Financial Officer of Merrill LynchAlternative Investments LLC, the manager of ML Aspect FuturesAccess LLC,certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-Q of ML Aspect FuturesAccess LLC;

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)  Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,of internal control over financial reporting to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

a)  Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)  Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date:  August 14, 2007
| By                                            | /s/ BARBRA E. KOCSIS |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------|--------|
| Barbra E. Kocsis                              |
| Chief Financial  Officer                      |
| (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
#### Betty Jane STONE, Respondent, v. Kenneth Londaro STONE, Appellant.

No. WD 48886.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 6, 1995.

Peter J. Koppe, Kansas City, for appellant.

Donald L. Crow, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and SMART and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from property division and child custody provisions of dissolution decree.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Gene G. BROWN, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 69582.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 30, 1996.

Blake R. Fischer, Asst. Pros. Atty., Franklin County, Union, for appellant.

Kurt Hellmann, Union, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The State of Missouri appeals the dismissal of the driving while intoxicated charge against defendant Gene G. Brown. The trial court found the prosecution of the charge violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because defendant previously had his license administratively suspended.

This case is controlled by the Missouri Supreme Court’s recent decision in *State v. Mayo,*915 S.W.2d 758 (Mo. banc 1996). There, the court held a charge of driving while intoxicated is not barred by Double Jeopardy because the defendant’s license had been administratively suspended. Thus, it reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the charge against the defendant.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
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-2018-0025-4270

Scosche Industries, Inc:

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