alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

3867186.1

MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR COUNSEL TO APPEAR BY 

VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE AT MAY 22, 2023 HEARING

Gary S. Lincenberg (admitted pro hac vice)

 glincenberg@birdmarella.com

Ariel A. Neuman (admitted pro hac vice)

 aneuman@birdmarella.com

Gopi K. Panchapakesan (admitted pro hac vice)

 gkp@birdmarella.com

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

Telephone: (310) 201-2100

Facsimile: (310) 201-2110

Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-DJH

MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR 

COUNSEL TO APPEAR BY VIRTUAL 

TELECONFERENCE AT MAY 22, 

2023 HEARING

[Filed concurrently with [Proposed] 

Order]

Date: May 22, 2023

Time: 11:00 A.M.

Crtrm.: 506

Assigned to Hon. Diane J. Humetewa

Trial Date: August 8, 2023

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1583 Filed 05/09/23 Page 1 of 3
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

3867186.1 2

MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR COUNSEL TO APPEAR BY 

VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE AT MAY 22, 2023 HEARING

Defendant John Brunst, by and through his undersigned counsel, seeks leave to 

attend the May 22, 2023 Hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Superseding 

Indictment by virtual teleconference.

As the government has seized the majority of Mr. Brunst’s assets, he has 

insufficient funds available to cover the fees and costs for the re-trial of this case, any 

appeals, and litigation of the related consolidated civil forfeiture matter, and is seeking to 

preserve resources as much as possible. Mr. Brunst therefore requests that undersigned 

counsel be permitted to appear at the May 22, 2023 hearing virtually. 

The Government does not object to Mr. Brunst’s request.

DATED: May 9, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

Gary S. Lincenberg

Ariel A. Neuman

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,

Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

By: /s/ Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1583 Filed 05/09/23 Page 2 of 3
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

3867186.1 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 9, 2023, I electronically transmitted the attached 

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of 

a Notice of Electronic Filing to the CM/ECF registrants who have entered their appearance 

as counsel of record.

By: /s/ Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,

Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1583 Filed 05/09/23 Page 3 of 3
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – PHOENIX

U.S. District Judge: Diane J. Humetewa Date: September 14, 2023

USA v. Michael Lacey, et al Case Number: CR-18-00422-PHX-DJH

Assistant U.S. Attorneys: Kevin Rapp, Austin Berry, Margaret Perlmeter, Andrew Stone, Peter 

Kozinets

Attorneysfor Defendants: Paul J. Cambria Jr., Retained for Defendant Lacey, present; Bruce S. Feder, 

Retained (Knapp) and Eric W. Kessler, CJA for Defendant Spear, present; Gary S. Lincenberg and Gopi 

K. Panchapakesan, Retained for Defendant Brunst, present; David S. Eisenberg, CJA for Defendant 

Padilla, present; Joy M. Bertrand, CJA for Defendant Vaught, present.

Defendants: ☒ Present ☐ Not Present ☒ Released ☐ Custody ☐ Summons ☐ Writ

JURY TRIAL (Day 6):

9:00 a.m. Court reconvenes. Jury present. Carl Ferrer examined further. Exhibits 593a-b, 804, 49, 1187, 

1613, 918, 1610, 1609a, 923, 932, 933, 925, and 52 are admitted. 10:27 a.m. Jury exits courtroom. 

Discussion held with counsel re: limiting instruction. Mr. Feder makes an oral Motion for a Mistrial. 

Argument heard. IT IS ORDERED that the Court will adhere to its previous ruling and the oral Motion 

for a Mistrial is denied. 10:36 a.m. Recess. 

10:52 a.m. Court reconvenes. Jury present. Witness examined further. Exhibits 938, 907, 600, 57, 58, 

and 58a are admitted. 12:00 p.m. Jury exits courtroom. Discussion held re: authentication of emails 

and Doc. 1776. 12:11 p.m. Recess.

1:03 p.m. Court reconvenes. Discussion held with counsel re: Exhibits 1185 and 1185a. Ms. Bertrand 

makes an oral Motion for a Mistrial. Argument heard. IT IS ORDERED the oral Motion for Mistrial 

is denied. 1:20 p.m. Recess. 

1:24 p.m. Court reconvenes. The Court having assessed the display in the atrium, the oral Motion for 

Mistrial remains denied. 1:31 p.m. Jury present. Witness examined further. Exhibits 58c, 56, 65, 604, 

1928, 201, 1586, 610, 612, 614, 615, 39a, 1766, 1766a, and 1767 are admitted. 2:39 p.m. Recess.

3:01 p.m. Court reconvenes. Court supplements its record re: its ruling on Ms. Bertrand’s oral Motion 

for a Mistrial. 3:05 p.m. Jury present. Witness examined further. Exhibits 1874, 1874a, 1185 pages 1-

4 marked as 1185a, 940, 162, 162a, 163, 164, 165, 168, and 504-513 are admitted. 4:31 p.m. Jury exits 

courtroom. Discussion held re: Exhibits. 4:35 p.m. Court in recess until Friday, September 15, 2023 at 

9:00 a.m.

Court Reporter Cathy Taylor/Teri Veres

Deputy Clerk Liliana Figueroa

Start: 9:00 AM

Stop: 4:35 PM

Total: 6hrs 1min

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1789 Filed 09/14/23 Page 1 of 1
#### Nathan SHERROD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 51032.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 20, 1996.

Rose M. Wibbenmeyer, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General; Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Special Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and BERREY and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Nathan Sherrod pled guilty to the Class B felony of sale of a controlled substance in violation of Section 195.211, RSMo 1994. He was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to a term of imprisonment of seven years. He filed a Rule 24.035 motion to vacate the judgment and sentence, which was denied as untimely. Mr. Sherrod appeals, contending that the 90-day time limit for filing a motion under Rule 24.035 violates his due process rights because it arbitrarily denies him reasonable access to post-conviction relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. Finding no error, we affirm. Because a published opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no precedential value, we affirm by this summary order under Rule 84.16. In addition, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth our reasoning.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
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 Advanced BioMedical Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), I, Kai GUI, Chief Financial Officer 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 Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated this 14th day of June 2010.





/s/ Kai GUI





Kai GUI, Director, Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

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 China Multimedia, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, President and Chairman 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 requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Wilson Cheung



Wilson Cheung, President and Chairman

May 14, 2007
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Corey TRICE, Appellant.; Corey TRICE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 62165, 63777.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 28, 1993.

Rosalynn Koch, Brad B. Baker, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his convictions for first degree assault and armed criminal action as well as the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Finding no error, we affirm. We further find no precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an extended opinion and affirm by written order. Rule 30.25(b); Rule 84.16(b)(2). A memorandum has been provided to the parties for their use only.
Case 3:18-cr-08052-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 1 of 6
Case 3:18-cr-08052-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 2 of 6
Case 3:18-cr-08052-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 3 of 6
Case 3:18-cr-08052-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 4 of 6
Case 3:18-cr-08052-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 5 of 6
Case 3:18-cr-08052-DGC Document 1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 6 of 6
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2013 (the Report) of PennantPark
Investment Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Aviv Efrat, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | (1) | The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|              
|--------------
|/s/ Aviv Efrat
|Aviv Efrat    
|May 8, 2013
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

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Armando Alfredo Barraza-Cruz, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-17-1576-PHX-SPL

ORDER OF DETENTION

Defendant appeared before this Court on a Petition for Revocation of Supervised

Release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The Court considered the

Petition and file in determining whether defendant should be released on conditions set by

the Court.

The Court finds that defendant has failed to carry his burden of establishing that he

does not pose a serious flight risk pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure.

The Court concludes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant is a serious

flight risk and that there is no condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably

assure his appearance at future proceedings.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further

proceedings.

DATED this 10th day of September, 2018
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 17, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40911

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GREGORIO VILLAFRANCA-CASTRO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-108-ALL

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

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gregorio Villafranca-Castro appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and sentence for being found in the United States,

without permission, following his conviction of an aggravated

felony and subsequent removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b). 

For the first time on appeal, Villafranca-Castro argues that

the sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are

unconstitutional. Villafranca-Castro acknowledges that his

argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523
No. 04-40911

-2-

U.S. 224, 235 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issue for review

in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

However, Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See

Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d

979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow

Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself

determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Also for the first time on appeal, Villafranca-Castro,

relying on the possibility that Almendarez-Torres will be

overruled, as well as on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296

(2004), argues that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are

unconstitutional because they permit the enhancement of a

sentence based on a defendant’s prior convictions. The argument

fails because Almendarez-Torres has not been overruled, and the

enhancement of a sentence based on prior convictions does not

violate the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct.

738, 756 (2005). 

Finally, Villafranca-Castro argues that the district court

erred by sentencing him under the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines

scheme held unconstitutional in Booker. See id. We review for

plain error. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597,

600 (5th Cir. 2005). Villafranca-Castro has satisfied the first

two prongs of the plain error analysis by showing that the

district court committed error that was plain. See id. The
No. 04-40911

-3-

error is not a structural one, however, and Villafranca-Castro

has not satisfied the third prong of the plain error analysis by

showing that the error affected his substantial rights. See id.

at 600-01. 

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
#### Marlow HODGES, Defendant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent.

No. 65132.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 2, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 30, 1994.

Robert G. Costantinou, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconvietion relief after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 97 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 97

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 28, 2009.
    Resolved, That clause 11(a)(1) of rule X is amended by--
            (1) striking ``21'' and inserting ``22''; and
            (2) striking ``12'' and inserting ``13''.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 920 

Directing the Attorney General to transmit to the House of Representatives 

all information in the Attorney General’s possession regarding certain 

matters pertaining to detainees held at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 

Cuba who are transferred into the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2009 

Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. POE of Texas, 

Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. COBLE, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. HARPER, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. ROONEY, Mr. 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. ISSA, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. 

GOODLATTE, and Mr. FORBES) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Directing the Attorney General to transmit to the House 

of Representatives all information in the Attorney General’s possession regarding certain matters pertaining to 

detainees held at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 

who are transferred into the United States. 

1 Resolved, That the Attorney General is directed to 

2 transmit to the House of Representatives, not later than 

3 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, 

4 copies of any document, record, memo, correspondence, or 

5 other communication of the Department of Justice, inVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:26 Nov 20, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR920.IH HR920

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 920 IH 

1 cluding the Office of the Solicitor General, or any portion 

2 of any such communication, that refers or relates to— 

3 (1) any legal guidance or recommendations 

4 made since January 20, 2009, regarding additional 

5 legal rights or protections, including under the Con6 stitution, statutes, and treaties, detainees held at 

7 Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, receive 

8 when transferred into the United States from such 

9 Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; or 

10 (2) pretrial detention, post conviction incarcer11 ation, or transportation within the United States, of 

12 detainees held at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 

13 Cuba, who are to be transferred into the United 

14 States for prosecution and trial in the United States 

15 District Court of the Southern District of New York. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Calvin Lee WEST, Appellant.

WD 46750.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 10, 1993.

Lorry L. Kohrs, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from conviction after trial by jury of the Class A felony of robbery in the first degree pursuant to section 569.020, RSMo 1986.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTIONS 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

ThisCertificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of theUnited States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

Theundersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer ofBehringer Harvard Multifamily REIT I, Inc. (the “Company”), each herebycertify as follows:

 

TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company (the “Report”), whichaccompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and allinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated this 15th day ofMay, 2009.

 
|   | /s/ Robert S. Aisner    |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Robert S. Aisner        |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                    |
|   | /s/ Gary S. Bresky      |
|   | Gary S. Bresky          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 122 (Monday, June 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 32431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15962]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project No. 2009-009]


Virginia Electric Power Company; Notice of Availability of Draft 
Environmental Assessment

June 18, 1996.
    A draft environmental assessment (DEA) is available for public 
review. The DEA is for an application to amend the Gaston and Roanoke 
Rapids Hydroelectric Project. The application is to provide for the 
installation of a water supply intake and associated facilities at Lake 
Gaston for the City of South Hill. The DEA finds that approval of the 
application would not constitute a major federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment. The Gaston and Roanoke 
Rapids Hydroelectric Project is located on the Roanoke River in 
Mecklenburg and Brunswick Counties, Virginia and Warren, Northampton, 
and Halifax Counties, North Carolina.
    The DEA was written by staff in the Office of Hydropower Licensing, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Copies of the DEA can be viewed 
at the Commission's Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street, 
N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. Copies can also be obtained by calling 
the project manager listed below.
    Please submit any comments within 40 days from the date of this 
notice. Any comments, conclusions, or recommendations that draw upon 
studies, reports or other working papers of substance should be 
supported by appropriate documentation.
    Comments should be addressed to Lois D. Cashell, Secretary, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426. Please affix Project No. 2009-009 to all comments. For further 
information, please contact the project manager, John A. Schnagl, at 
(202) 219-2661.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15962 Filed 6-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M