alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 76 (Thursday, April 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9710]




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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service


Notice of Receipt of Applications for Permit

    The following applicants have applied for a permit to conduct 
certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided 
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.):

    Applicant: John Monson, Bedford, NH, PRT-801217.

    The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy 
of one male bontebok (Damaliscus dorcas dorcas) culled from the captive 
herd maintained by Mr. L. Tonks, Sondagsrivierhoek, Graaff Reinet, 
Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the 
survival of the species.

    Written data or comments should be submitted to the Director, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Management Authority, 4401 North 
Fairfax Drive, Room 420(c), Arlington, Virginia 22203 and must be 
received by the Director within 30 days of the date of this 
publication.

    Documents and other information submitted with these applications 
are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy 
Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written 
request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 
days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Office of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 
420(c), Arlington, Virginia 22203. Phone: (703/358-2104); FAX: (703/
358-2281).

    Dated: April 14, 1995.

Caroline Anderson,

Acting Chief, Branch of Permits, Office of Management Authority.

[FR Doc. 95-9710 Filed 4-19-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 524 

AN ACT 

To amend the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to create an 

exemption for certain shoreline borrow sites. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 524 EH

1 SECTION 1. FEDERAL COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT 

2 PROJECTS. 

3 Section 6(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 

4 U.S.C. 3505(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(7) Use of a sand source within a System unit 

7 by Federal coastal storm risk management projects 

8 or their predecessor projects that have used a sys9 tem unit for sand to nourish adjacent beaches out10 side the System pursuant to section 5 of the Act of 

11 August 18, 1941 (commonly known as the ‘Flood 

12 Control Act of 1941’) (55 Stat. 650, chapter 377; 

13 33 U.S.C. 701n) at least once between December 

14 31, 2008 and December 31, 2023 in response to an 

15 emergency situation prior to December 31, 2023.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 11, 2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 524 

AN ACT 

To amend the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to 

sites. create an exemption for certain shoreline borrow
#### Patricia L. KEATON, Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Appellant.

No. WD 50775.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 12, 1996.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Ronald D. Pridgin, Special Assistant Attorney General, Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for appellant.

J. Martin Kerr, Independence, for respondent.

Before ELLIS, P.J., and HANNA and SPINDEN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

The Director of Revenue appeals the order of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, reinstating the driving privilege of Patricia L. Keaton. Keaton’s license was revoked upon her refusal to submit to chemical testing pursuant to § 677.041, RSMo 1994.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. 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. Rule 84.16(b).
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-85,261-02

EX PARTE CHRISTOPHER CODY MCDONOUGH, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR23654-A IN THE 35 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM BROWN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a

controlled substance in a drug free zone and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. He did not

appeal his conviction.

Applicant contends, among other things, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance

because counsel did not investigate whether the crime occurred in a drug free zone. 

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The habeas
2

court has made findings based on counsel’s affidavit in a companion case. However, counsel’s

affidavit in the companion case does not address the unique facts in this case. In these circumstances,

additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court shall order

trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court may

use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the

performance of Applicant’s trial counsel was deficient and, if so, whether counsel’s deficient

performance prejudiced Applicant. The trial court shall also make specific findings of fact

determining the location of this offense and the distance between where the offense occurred and the

drug free zone alleged in the indictment. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact

and conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim

for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court. 
3

Filed: February 1, 2017

Do not publish
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9476]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Robert L. Downey, et al.; Change in Bank Control Notices; 
Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the notices have been accepted for 
processing, they will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later 
than May 2, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice 
President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198:
    1. Robert L. and Maryjo M. Downey, both of Stratton, Colorado; to 
acquire an additional 16 percent, for a total of 24 percent, of the 
voting shares of Stratton Bancshares, Inc., Stratton, Colorado, and 
thereby indirectly acquire The First National Bank of Stratton, 
Stratton, Colorado.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Genie D. Short, Vice President) 
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. William Donald Skov, Clint, Texas, and Robert E. Skov, El Paso, 
Texas; each to retain 12.51 percent, for a total combined ownership of 
25.02 percent, of the voting shares of First Fabens Bancorporation, 
Inc., Fabens, Texas, and thereby indirectly retain shares of First 
National Bank, Fabens, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 12, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-9476 Filed 4-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
EXHIBIT 10.2

Amendment Number 2 to

AMENDED AND RESTATED

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

Kurt D. Kost

THIS AMENDMENT, is made effective as of June 18, 2007, by and between Foundation Coal Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
Company) and (Executive).

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive previously entered into an Amended and
Restated Employment Agreement, dated March 13, 2006 (the Employment Agreement); and

WHEREAS, the Company and
Executive previously entered into Amendment Number 1, dated January 3, 2007, to the Employment Agreement (the Amendment Number 1); and

WHEREAS, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board of Directors (Nominating Committee) has developed a Chief Executive Officer (the CEO) development plan for
the development of a succession candidate for the position of CEO; and

WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of
the Company (Compensation Committee) has sought the services of its independent compensation consultant regarding the appropriate executive compensation package for the CEO succession candidate; and

WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee has reviewed the information provided by its independent compensation consultant and has determined it would be in
the best interest of the Company and its Stockholders to further amend the Employment Agreement to revise the title and base salary of the Executive.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:

Section 2. Position. The Position of Executive is revised to reflect Executive shall serve as the Companys Executive Vice President.

Section 3. Base Salary. During the Employment Term, the Company shall pay Executive a base salary at the annual rate of
$350,000.

Except as otherwise noted in this Amendment Number 2, all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement remain as originally written.
In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of this Amendment Number 2 and the terms of the Employment Agreement, the terms of this Amendment Number 2 shall be controlling.



1



---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of the day and year first
above written.



|                            |  |                                |  |                 
|--------------------------- |  | ------------------------------ |  | ----------------
|FOUNDATION COAL CORPORATION |  | KURT D. KOST                  
|                            |  |                               
|                            |  | /s/ Michael R. Peelish         |  | /s/ Kurt D. Kost
|By:                         |  | Michael R. Peelish             |  |                 
|Title:                      |  | SVP Safety and Human Resources |  |                 



2
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

                   I, James F. Walsh, certify that:

          1.      I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K ofInterpool, Inc.;

          2.     Based on my knowledge, this Annual Report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

          3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in 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’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

               (a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information 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 the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and 

               (c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and 

          5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): 

               (a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data; and 

               (b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting. 

Date:  March 28, 2005
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-2018-0025-6765

Johnson Electric 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 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
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Sharla Wagener TRUSTY, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 69255.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 30, 1996.

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

Daniel J. Briegel, 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 Sharia Wagener Trusty. The trial court found the prosecution of the charge violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because defendant previously had her 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 Icense 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.
#### Miccah FOLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 46957.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 1, 1993.

Raymond L. Legg, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before FENNER, P.J., and SPINDEN and SMART, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
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 JayHawk Energy, Inc. a Colorado corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Lindsay E. Gorrill, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to JayHawk Energy, Inc., and will be retained by JayHawk Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  /s/ Lindsay GorrillLindsay Gorrill
Chief Executive Officer
February 14, 2011
| 1.     | the      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,      2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;      and |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
| 2.     | the      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form  10-Q                                       |

| Dated:      August 18, 2009  | /s/      Simon Price                                                                                   |
|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                              | Simon      Price                                                                                       |
|                              | Chief      Executive Officer (Principal      Executive Officer and Principal Accounting  Officer) |
#### Vernon Eugene HUBBARD, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 41311.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 15, 1989.

Larry E. Kinnamon, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Joseph, for movant-appellant.

*574William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Christopher M. Kehr, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GAITAN, P.J., and MANFORD and ULRICH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Direct appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief sought pursuant to Rule 27.-26.1

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b)

1

. These proceedings are within the former Rule 27.26 because the matter was pending prior to January 1, 1988.