alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 91 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21172-21173]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11588]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-218-000]


Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

May 3, 1996.
    Take notice that on April 29, 1996, Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Eastern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on 
Appendix A, with a proposed effective date of May 29, 1996.
    Texas Eastern states that the purpose of this filing is to provide 
Texas Eastern's firm customers under Rates Schedules CDS, FT-1, LLFT 
and SCT with a customized reservation rate that will allow them maximum 
flexibility in dealing with differing market conditions throughout the 
contract year. The

[[Page 21173]]

Customized Reservation Pattern <SUP>TM (``CRP'') election will allow a 
firm customer to shift non-tracked reservation charges from the April 
to October period into the preceding November to March period. By 
customizing reservation charges during the contract year, this rate 
methodology will lift ceiling prices for capacity release and further 
the goal enunciated by the Commission in Order No. 635 and its Rate 
Design Policy Statement of allocating capacity to those shippers who 
value it the most.
    Texas Eastern states that copies of the filing were served on the 
firm customers of Texas Eastern and interested State commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with 18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as provided 
in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.

Appendix A--Sixth Revised Volume No. 1

Proposed To Be Effective May 29, 1996

Sheet Nos.78-97
Sheet Nos. 98-125
First Revised Sheet No. 202
Original Sheet No. 202A
First Revised Sheet No. 204
Original Sheet No. 204A
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 211
Original Sheet No. 211A
First Revised Sheet No. 214
Original Sheet No. 214A
First Revised Sheet No. 224
First Revised Sheet No. 225
First Revised Sheet No. 227
First Revised Sheet No. 229
Original Sheet No. 229A
First Revised Sheet No. 250
First Revised Sheet No. 252
Original Sheet No. 252A
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 463
Original Sheet No. 711
Sheet Nos. 712-715
Original Sheet No. 726
Sheet Nos. 727-730
Original Sheet No. 741
Sheet Nos. 742-745
Original Sheet No. 766C.1

[FR Doc. 96-11588 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FELIPE DE JESUS HERNANDEZPADILLA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 05-75291

Agency No. A076-850-597

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted November 6, 2009

San Francisco, California

Before: B. FLETCHER, CANBY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Felipe de Jesus Hernandez-Padilla petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of cancellation of removal. Because

Petitioner’s case is in all relevant ways identical to the petitioner’s case in NunezReyes v. Holder, No. 05-75291, slip op. at 6053 (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2010), and in the

petitioner’s case in Rice v. Holder, 597 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2010), we grant the

FILED

APR 27 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

petition for review and remand for further proceedings. As in Nunez-Reyes, we

remand on an open record, and the government is free to raise any arguments not

rejected in that opinion.

Petition GRANTED; case REMANDED.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Scott Daniel Warren,

Defendant.

17-mj-00341-TUC-RCC (JR)

ORDER 

On motion of the United States of America, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED Granting the Motion to Dismiss Information (Doc. 156). The 

Information against defendant, Scott Daniel Warren, is dismissed without prejudice. 

Dated this 27th day of February, 2020.
EXHIBIT 32.3

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UCFH I FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the quarterly report of UCFH I Finance, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 1, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John R.
Sprouls certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 14, 2006



By:

/s/ JOHN R. SPROULSJohn R. SproulsPresident (Principal Executive Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6820

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CLAUDE DELMUS SHAFER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CR-92-112-R-H, CA-95-59-R)

Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 21, 1997

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claude Delmus Shafer, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying

his motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214, and for reconsideration. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's orders and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Shafer, Nos. CR-92-112-R-H; CA-95-59-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 24,

1996). We further deny Appellant's motions to set aside his conviction and grant a new trial, for appointment of counsel, and for a

financial affidavit. 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
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

OSMAN MORALES,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 11

- 00144

- CR

Appeal from the

346th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#20090D01032)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 27 TH DAY OF MARCH , 2013.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Antcliff, JJ.

Antclif f, J., not participating
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of MAJOR CREATIONS INCORPORATED (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"), I, William Major Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



The information contained in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/ William Major

Date: June 14, 2006                  William Major

Chief Financial Officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1752

FURQAN MOHAMMAD,

Debtor - Appellant,

v.

JOHN P. FITZGERALD, III,

Trustee - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-01568-CMH-IDD)

Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Furqan Mohammad, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh Michael Bernstein, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Furqan Mohammad appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy 

court’s order denying approval of his amended disclosure statement and dismissing 

Mohammad’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Mohammad v. Fitzgerald, No. 1:18-cv-01568-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va. June 21, 2019).

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.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1388

IRIS MCCLAIN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, “Wells 

Fargo”; TIMOTHY SLOAN, President & CEO of Wells Fargo Bank, NA; JP 

MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY; JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; JAMES 

DIMON, CEO of JP Morgan Chase & Co. & JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA; BANK 

OF NEW YORK MELLON; GERALD HASSELL, Chairman & CEO of The 

Bank of New York Mellon; GOLDMAN SACHS MORTGAGE COMPANY; 

GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.; LLOYD BLANKFIEN, CEO & Chairman 

of Goldman Sachs Mortgage Co., Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.; KRISTINE D. 

BROWN, Esq.; GREGORY N. BRITTO, Esq.; ROBYN A. MCQUILLEN, Esq.; 

WILLIAM M. SAVAGE, Esq., Managing Partner of Shapiro & Brown Alt, LLP; 

LILA Z. STITELY, Esq.,

 Defendants - Appellees,

and

WELLS FARGO COMPANY; WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, NA; 

GOLDMAN SACHS; SHAPIRO BROWN & ALT, LLP,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:17-cv-01094-TDC)

Submitted: September 20, 2018 Decided: October 4, 2018
2

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Iris McClain, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Wood Barnhart, WOMBLE BOND 

DICKINSON (US) LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Bryan Gales, Baltimore, Maryland, Brett 

Lawrence Messinger, DUANE MORRIS, LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Iris McClain appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss her civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. With the parties’ 

consent, we dismiss the Appellees identified in the joint stipulation. We affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. McClain v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 

8:17-cv-01094-TDC (D. Md. Mar. 8, 2018).*

 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.

AFFIRMED

 * We find no merit to McClain’s contentions on appeal that the district court was 

biased against her and that the court’s determinations were tainted by a mistaken view of 

the facts.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

James Saunders, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Safelite Fulfillment Incorporated, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-17-03943-PHX-SMB 

ORDER 

Pursuant to the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (Doc. 38), and good cause appearing therefore, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED dismissing this action in its entirety, with Plaintiff’s 

individual claims dismissed with prejudice, and each party shall bear their own attorneys’ 

fees and costs. 

 Dated this 8th day of January, 2019. 

Case 2:17-cv-03943-SMB Document 39 Filed 01/09/19 Page 1 of 1
#### In re D.L.J., a minor. Gena EDWARDS, Appellant, v. Barbara SLOAN and Ruben Jones, Respondents.

No. 67886.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 20, 1996.

John T. Murray, Columbia, for appellant.

No appearances for respondent or representative of D.L.J.

KAROHL, Judge.

Gena Edwards, in her capacity as petitioner for appointment as guardian/conservator for D.L.J., born December 2, 1993, appeals dismissal of her petition without a hearing. The appeal was not opposed by either parent or any representative of D.L.J. We find petitioner is entitled to a hearing on the petition. We reverse the dismissal and remand the cause.

Petitioner, Gena Edwards, has eared for D.L.J. since shortly after his birth. He has never resided with either his natural mother or father. The mother signed a Newborn Custodian/Guardian consent form on October 5, 1993, authorizing petitioner Edwards to have temporary custody and giving her permission to seek medical attention, if needed. After the time limit set in the consent form expired, petitioner filed this proceeding in the probate court.

We do not reach the merits of the petition. We consider only the argument that the probate court is obligated to have a hearing, take testimony of witnesses, and make a decision on the merits.

The subject matter of the petition is within the jurisdiction of the probate court. Section 472.020 RSMo 1994. Letters of guardianship of the person of a minor may be granted when the parents are unwilling, unable, or judged unfit to assume the duties of natural guardianship. Section 475.030.4(2) RSMo 1994. Letters of conservatorship may be granted if the court decides that the best interests of the minor requires letters of *438conservatorship. Section 475.030.3(2) RSMo 1994. The petition alleges grounds for venue in Audrain County because the child lives there with petitioner. Section 475.035.1(1) RSMo 1994.

The petition is sufficient in form and substance to present the issues to the probate court. The petition requests appointment as guardian and conservator, rather than adoption or placement for future adoption. Petitioner proceeds only on the basis that she is and has been the ad hoc custodian of the child. The issues are: (1) whether the natural parents are unwilling or unable to provide for the minor child; and, (2) the appointment of the most suitable person who is willing to serve as guardian/conservator, if required. Section 475.045.3 RSMo 1994. We find no procedural or substantive deficiencies in the petition and none were relied on in the order dismissing the petition.

We conclude that the probate court has both the power and the duty to inquire into the necessity of guardianship/conservatorship in the present case. *State of Missouri ex rel. Standefer v. England,*328 S.W.2d 732, 737 (Sp.C.App.1959). In the event there is proof no natural parent is fulfilling parental duties, then the appointment of a statutory guardian is necessary. *Reece v. Reece,*890 S.W.2d 706, 710 (Mo.App.W.D.1995).

We reverse dismissal and remand for hearing.

REINHARD, P.J., and CRANDALL, J., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 460 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 460

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2194) to amend the Iran 
Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with 
     respect to Iran by expanding economic sanctions against Iran.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 2009

  Mr. Burton of Indiana submitted the following resolution; which was 
                   referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2194) to amend the Iran 
Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with 
     respect to Iran by expanding economic sanctions against Iran.

    Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the 
House shall consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2194) to amend the 
Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance United States diplomatic efforts 
with respect to Iran by expanding economic sanctions against Iran. All 
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be 
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill 
are waived. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to consideration of 
the bill. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and (2) one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
                                 <all>
```
[letterhead]

                                U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
                                New York State Office
                                Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
                                26 Federal Plaza
                                New York, New York 10278-0068


                                  July 24, 1996


Mr. Daniel Silverman
Executive Vice President
Community Home Mortgage Corporation
45 Executive Drive
Plainview, NY 11803

Dear Mr. Silverman:

         This will confirm that your office is approved to underwrite  and close
mortgage loans,  including Section 203 (k) loans,  under the Direct  Endorsement
Program without prior HUD review.

         You are reminded that participation in the Direct  Endorsement  Program
is a privilege  accorded  only to  mortgagees  who continue to  demonstrate  the
ability to originate mortgage loans in accordance with HUD underwriting  policy.
Accordingly, should the mortgage loans submitted for Direct Endorsement indicate
unsatisfactory underwriting, this privilege will be reduced or withdrawn.

                                            Sincerely,

                                            /s/ Stann Kaplan
                                            ------------------------------
                                            Stann Kaplan
                                            Acting Chief, Single Family
                                            Production Branch

         Visit our Web Site at: http://www.hud.gov/local/nyn/nyopen.html
CERTIFICATIONS


I, Adam
Jenn, certify that:





1.           I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of U.S. Canadian Minerals,
Inc. (formerly known as Barrington Foods International, Inc.);





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





3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;





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





a)           Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;





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





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





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





a)           All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the 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 who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.





August
20, 2008








/s/ 
Adam
Jenn


Adam
Jenn


Chief
Executive Officer