alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11000]



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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


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 16, 1996.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice 
President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198:
    1. Milton Pearce Blake, and Jack L. & Adrienne Grimmett, of Pauls 
Valley, Oklahoma; William E. & Gay W. Humphrey, of Oklahoma City, 
Oklahoma; and Richard Keith Mansfield, of Marlow, Oklahoma; all to 
acquire an additional 5.01 percent each for a total of 25 percent each, 
of the voting shares of Leader First Bancorp, Inc., Marlow, Oklahoma, 
and thereby indirectly acquire The First National Bank in Marlow, 
Marlow, Oklahoma.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 29, 
1996.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-11000 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-60671 Summary Calendar

MASOUD YADEGAR, Petitioner,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A78 588 417

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Masoud Yadegar, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision to deny his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The petition is DENIED.No. 04-60671 -2- The BIA’s order dismissing Yadegar’s appeal expressly adopted and affirmed the IJ’s finding that Yadegar was not a credible witness. Although our review ordinarily is limited to the BIA’s decision, when the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ, this court may review the IJ’s decision. See Mikhael v. INS , 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s credibility finding without stating additional reasons, we review the IJ’s decision. The IJ must determine the credibility of witnesses. Chun v.
INS , 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). This court does not substitute its judgment for that of the IJ or BIA with respect to witness credibility and the ultimate factual findings based on credibility determinations. Chun , 40 F.3d at 78. When a finding regarding credibility is based on “a reasonable interpretation of the record and therefore supported by substantial evidence,” it will be upheld. Id. at 79. “[A] credibility determination may not be overturned unless the record compels it.” Lopez De Jesus
v. INS , 312 F.3d 155, 161 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Chun , 40 F.3d at 78)). In addition to arguing the merits of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT, Yadegar challenges the IJ’s finding that he was not a credible witness. The IJ’s credibility finding is amply supported by the record.
See Chun , 40 F.3d at 79. The record thus does not compel a credibility determination contrary to that of the IJ. See LopezNo. 04-60671 -3-
De Jesus , 312 F.3d at 161. Because the credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, Yadegar’s petition for review of the BIA’s order is DENIED.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. F AB I AN VA KS MAN, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 11- 30302 D . C. N o . 2 : 1 1 - c r - 0 0 0 7 4 - W FN ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on W m . F r e m m i ng N i e l s e n, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r10, 2012 ** B e f o r e : W A R D L A W , C L I F T O N , an dN .R . S M I T H , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . F ab ian V an k s m an ap p e a ls f r o m h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n an d1 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e f

o rc o n te m p t o f

c o u rt, in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 4 0 1 ( 3 ) . P u r s u an t to A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), V aksm an’ s c ou nselhas f i l ed a bri ef st at i ng there ar e no g roun ds for r el i ef , al on g w i th a m ot i on t o w i thd raw as coun se l



# FI LED SEP 19 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 30302 2 o f reco rd . W e h av e p ro v i d edV ak sm an w i th th e o p p o rtu n i ty t o fi l e a p ro se supp l em ent albri ef

. N o p ro se supp l em ent albri ef or answ er i ng bri ef

has bee n f i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o ar g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. W e d is m is s in lig h t o f

th e v a lidap p e a l w a iv e r . See U ni ted States v. N

gu ye n , 235 F . 3d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . V ak sm an ’ s p ro se req u estfo r ap p o i n tm en to f su b st i tu t e co u n sel , p ro se m o t i o n s fo r cert i fi cat i o n t o th e W ash i n g t o n S up rem e C o u rt , an dp ro se supp l em ent alm ot i on s f or ce rt i fi cat i on t o the W as hi ng t on S up re m e C ou rtar e DE NI E D. C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s GR AN T E D. DI S MI S S E D.
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-2018-0025-7512

Whirlpool Corporation: 

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
No. 72-5831.

#### Rothstein et al. *v.*Wyman, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of New York, et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice White would grant certiorari.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

INDRATATI SELAMET,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR , Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 70077

Agency No. A088

- 129

- 499

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 19, 2019 **

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Indratati Selamet, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

abuse of discretion

, Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) , and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 26 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 70077

w e deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Selamet’s untimely motion

to reopen where Selamet failed to establish materially changed country conditions

in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline. See 8

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)

- ( 3) ; Najmabadi , 597 F.3d at 986 (“The BIA can deny a

motion to reopen [for] . . . failure to introduce previously unavailable, material

evidence

. . . ” (citation omitted)).

We deny Selamet’ s request for ju dicial notice (Docket Entry No. 12 )

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Kevin MCMULLIN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 63862.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 9, 1993.

Lew A. Kollias, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for movant/appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent/respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion as untimely filed. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.-16(b).
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of PremierWest Bancorp (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James M. Ford, Chief Executive Officer and President 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 SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and2.                The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company for the period certified.

This certification is being furnished solely to comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any of the Company's filings under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise be deemed to be filed as part of the Report or under such Acts.

|                     |                                      
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 16, 2009 | /s/ JAMES M. FORD                    
|                     | James M. Ford                        
|                     | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                     | (Principal Executive Officer)        

---
|   | 1. The quarterly report of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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. |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ J. Lloyd Breedlove                  |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | J. Lloyd Breedlove                                                                                                           |
|   | Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                      |
|   | August 14, 2009                                                                                                              |
|   |                                                                                                                         |
|   | /s/ Stephen Hoelscher                   |
|   | Stephen Hoelscher                                                                                                            |
|   | Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                      |
|   | August 14, 2009                                                                                                              |
Exhibit 31.1**Certification**I, William J. McGurk, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Rockville Financial, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) [Omitted as permitted by Exchange Act Release No. 47986];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on suchevaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        November 14, 2006   /s/ Mr. William J. McGurk    Mr. William J. McGurk         President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32**

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Terry G. Rousseland Sharon C. Kaiser, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to the best of his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of CornerstoneCore Properties REIT, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the three -month period ended March31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition andresults of operations of  CornerstoneCore Properties REIT, Inc.
|                           |  /s/ TERRY G. ROUSSEL                        |   |
|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  May 11,  2007 | Terry G. Roussel                                       |   |
|                      | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive  Officer) |   |

 
|                           | /s/ SHARON C. KAISER                             |   |
|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  May 11,  2007 | Sharon C. Kaiser                                      |   |
|                      | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |   |

 

1

----
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5411 

To prohibit the Secretary of Energy from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule titled ‘‘Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2023 

Mr. MOOLENAAR (for himself, Mr. NEWHOUSE, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mrs. BICE, 

Mr. WOMACK, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. FLEISCHMANN, Ms. MACE, and Mr. 

GROTHMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Energy from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule titled ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards 

for Residential Clothes Washers’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON RULEMAKING. 

4 The Secretary of Energy may not finalize, implement, 

5 or enforce the proposed rule titled ‘‘Energy Conservation 

6 Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5411 IH

1 Clothes Washers’’ (88 Fed. Reg. 13520 (March 3, 2023)) 

2 or any substantially similar rule. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7510

CHARLES JUSTIN UTZ, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE JOHNSON, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-03-181) Submitted: November 19, 2003 Decided: December 5, 2003 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Justin Utz, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Charles Justin Utz, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court also are debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Utz has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED