alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 110 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 28860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14276]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Bonneville Power Administration


Watershed Management Program Early Action Projects

AGENCY: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy 
(DOE).

ACTION: Floodplain statement of findings.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces BPA's proposal to fund watershed 
rehabilitation projects to improve salmon habitat in floodplains 
located throughout the Columbia River Basin in the states of 
Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 1022, BPA 
has prepared this Floodplain Statement of Findings for the Watershed 
Management Program Early Action Projects. A Notice of Floodplain and 
Wetlands Involvement was published in the Federal Register on May 14, 
1996 (Vol. 61, No. 94, pp. 24297-24298), and a floodplain and wetlands 
assessment was prepared by BPA describing the effects, alternatives, 
and measures designed to avoid or minimize potential harm to or within 
the affected floodplain. The assessment was prepared in conjunction 
with the Categorical Exclusion for this project.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Weintraub--ECN, Bonneville Power 
Administration, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon, 97208-3621, phone 
number 503-230-5373, fax number 503-230-5699.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Potential floodplain effects would include 
placing new structures or materials in streams that could be dislodged 
in a flood; and disturbing existing streambanks and channels, which 
would make them more susceptible to erosion and failure during flooding 
until stabilized and revegetated.
    The proposed actions would have long-term, net positive effects on 
the floodplains affected. It is necessary for many of the proposed 
actions to be located in floodplains because they are actions that 
would stabilize and rehabilitate streams and streambanks. Alternatives 
to the proposed actions are no action, or revisions in the proposed 
actions that would reduce potential net negative impacts to 
floodplains. The proposed actions would be required to conform to 
applicable Federal, State or local floodplain protection standards. The 
following steps will be taken to avoid or minimize potential harm to or 
within the affected floodplain: (1) the structures will either be 
engineered to withstand flooding, or would be natural materials 
designed to move downstream with the floods to create habitat for fish; 
and (2) channel restoration, revegetation, and erosion control and 
stabilization actions would be designed to lessen the impacts of future 
flooding on lives and property.
    BPA will endeavor to allow 15 days of public review after 
publication of this statement of findings before implementing the 
proposed action.

    Issued in Portland, Oregon, on May 30, 1996.
Thomas C. McKinney,
NEPA Compliance Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-14276 Filed 6-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 29760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14913]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[ID-957-1420-00]


Idaho: Filing of Plats of Survey; Idaho

    The plat of the following described land was officially filed in 
the Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho, 
effective 9:00 a.m., May 30, 1996.
    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the 
Tenth Standard Parallel North (south boundary, T. 49 N., R. 3 W.), and 
of the subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of sections 3, 4, and 
8, T 48 N., R. 3 W., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group No. 886, was 
accepted, May 30, 1996.
    This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of 
the USDA Forest Service, Region 1. All inquiries concerning the survey 
of the above described land must be sent to the Chief, Cadastral 
Survey, Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 3380 American 
Terrace, Boise, Idaho 83706-2500.

    Dated: May 30, 1996.
Duane E. Olsen,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho.
[FR Doc. 96-14913 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 18, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 30865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15355]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP96-273-000]


Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

June 12, 1996.
    Take notice that on June 7, 1996, Colorado Interstate Gas Company 
(CIG) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 237, with a requested 
effective date of August 1, 1996.
    CIG states that the purpose of the filing is to revise Section 1.52 
of the General Terms and Conditions of the Tariff. The proposed 
revision is based solely on an index change in the Inside FERC Gas 
Market Report publication.
    CIG states that copies of the filing have been served on CIG's 
Jurisdictional Customers and appropriate 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 the Section 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure. All such motions or protests must be 
filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
All protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make the protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene in accordance with the 
Commission's Rules. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for inspection in the Public Reference 
Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary
[FR Doc. 96-15355 Filed 6-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. William K. MURRAY, Appellant.

No. 53238.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Aug. 22, 1989.

Motion For Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 20, 1989.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 14, 1989.

Zwibelman, Edelman & Walter, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

*731ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is a combined direct appeal and Rule 29.15 appeal after convictions on two counts of first degree murder, § 565.020.1 RSMo 1986. The trial court ordered consecutive life sentences without eligibility for probation or parole.

The facts in this case are nearly identical with facts reported in *State v. Murray,*744 S.W.2d 762 (Mo.App.1988) and *Robert Anthony Murray v. State,*775 S.W.2d 89 (Mo. banc 1989). The cases involved defendant’s brother who was charged with the same murders. The brother was sentenced to death.

Two points on appeal involve a *Batson*issue. *Batson v. Kentucky,*476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Two issues involve admission of evidence over objection, a photograph of a victim and a piece of linoleum which exhibited knife marks. The last appeal issue claims error in denying a mistrial because the prosecutor alluded to punishment in closing argument in the guilty portion of the trial.

We find no error of fact or law in denying trial counsel’s motion for discharging the jury under *Batson.*Nor was counsel ineffective for not pursuing the motion beyond the prosecutor’s explanations for peremptory challenges.

The two evidentiary rulings were within the discretion of the trial judge. Both items were relevant and material to the issues. Both tended to prove matters extensively developed in direct and cross-examination of eyewitnesses.

The court did not commit reversible error in denying a mistrial when the prosecutor argued in the guilt phase of the trial, “[w]e are talking about a situation of a crime that should be examined in light of the full range of punishment.” The court sustained defendant’s objection, granted a request for an instruction to “disregard any reference to punishment at this time,” and, so told the jury.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by an extended opinion. We have examined the entire record and find no error of fact or law. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001041122
<NAME> OREGON TRAIL FINANCIAL CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                            1756
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            4520
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      98336
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            9338
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              9518
<LOANS>                                         185747
<ALLOWANCE>                                       1228
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  313473
<DEPOSITS>                                      199589
<SHORT-TERM>                                     50250
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               3551
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            42
<OTHER-SE>                                       60041
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  313473
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  14072
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 6510
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 20582
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                7203
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                8064
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            12518
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      483
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   8182
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   4951
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        3154
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3154
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.76
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.73
<LOANS-NON>                                        138
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   9126
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   847
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      115
<RECOVERIES>                                        13
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1228
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              1228
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Uniform rule dated 12/17/08 for all Deferred Compensation Promised by Registrant



 Exhibit 10(r) 
 UNIFORM RULE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SIX-MONTH RULE 
 UNDER CODE SECTION 409A 
 FOR ALL DEFERRED COMPENSATION PROMISED BY 
 XEROX CORPORATION 
 For every plan or arrangement maintained by Xerox Corporation, and notwithstanding any other provision of such plan or arrangement, in no event may an amount that
is deferred compensation as defined by Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), and payable under such plan or arrangement upon separation from service (as defined by Code section 409A and regulations thereunder) to a
specified employee (as defined by Code section 409A and regulations thereunder), be paid before the date that is six months after such separation. 
  

			
	XEROX CORPORATION
		
	By	 	 /s/    PATRICIA M.
NAZEMETZ        

		 	Vice President


 Date: December 17, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       237403
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 28405
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                   13850
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             973060
<PP&E>                                       134979
<DEPRECIATION>                                30257
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1852798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1033810
<BONDS>                                     1240216
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                       2158
<OTHER-SE>                                 (423386)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1852798
<SALES>                                      547466
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             547466
<CGS>                                        203835
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                203835
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             900731
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           199089
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (756189)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   5300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (761489)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (761489)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.04)


</TABLE>
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

6600172.1

Sanford K. Gerber, Bar #016506

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.

40 North Central Avenue, Suite 2700

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

Telephone: (602) 263-1779

Fax: (602) 200-7892

sgerber@jshfirm.com

minuteentries@jshfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendant GEICO Casualty

Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

DONNA SCHAFER, an adult individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, a

Maryland Corporation; JOHN DOES I-X;

JANE DOES I-X; ABC PARTNERSHIPS I-X

and XYZ CORPORATIONS I-X,

Defendants.

NO. CV-18-00609-PHX-GMS

STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH

PREJUDICE

(Assigned to the Honorable G. Murray Snow)

The parties, by and through counsel undersigned, hereby stipulate and agree that

the above-captioned action may be dismissed with prejudice as to all claims by Plaintiff against

Defendant, each party to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees, as the parties are proceeding

to a private binding arbitration.

Case 2:18-cv-00609-GMS Document 8 Filed 04/17/18 Page 1 of 2
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

6600172.1 2

DATED this 17th day of April, 2018.

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.

By/s/ Sanford K. Gerber

Sanford K. Gerber

40 North Central Avenue, Suite 2700

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

Attorneys for Defendant GEICO Casualty

Company

ZACHAR LAW FIRM, PC

By/s/ Christopher J. Zachar (w-permission)

Christopher J. Zachar

714 East Rose Lane

Phoenix, AZ 85014

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 17th day of April, 2018, I caused the foregoing

document to be filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court through the CM/ECF System for

filing; and served on counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF system.

Chris Zachar

ZACHAR LAW FIRM

P O Box 47640

Phoenix, AZ 85020

/s/ Judy McAuley

Case 2:18-cv-00609-GMS Document 8 Filed 04/17/18 Page 2 of 2
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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Stephen Mitchell Baquet Family Trust,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bayview Loan Services LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-17-00617-TUC-DCB

ORDER 

This case is closed, with Judgment entered against the Plaintiff based on res judicata 

and claim preclusion. (Order (Doc. 33); Judgment (Doc. 34)). Plaintiff’s appeal has been 

denied. (Mandate (Doc. 40)). Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Void Judgment and Notice of 

Errata. Both are stricken, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to not accept any filings in 

this case, without leave of the Court. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Notice of Void Judgment (Doc. 41) and 

Notice of Errata (Doc. 42) are STRICKEN. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall not accept any 

further filings in this case, without leave of the Court. 

 Dated this 19th day of March, 2019.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6736

FREDERICK ALPHONSO DEMETRE IRBY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, Broad River Correctional Institution,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District Court 

for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Richard Mark Gergel, 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-03583-RMG)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frederick Alphonso Demetre Irby, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John 

Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee. 
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Frederick Alphonso Demetre Irby seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge 

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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) (2012). 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 petition 

states 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 

Irby has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Irby’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny his motion 

for a transcript at government expense, deny as moot his motion 

for an extension of time to file his informal brief, and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 
4

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2

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 Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Graham K. Cooper, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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, to my knowledge:

(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: November 5, 2009



/s/ Graham K. CooperGraham K. CooperChief Financial Officer and Treasurer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.