alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 31193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15574]



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


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 
20549
Extension:
    Rule 17a-11
    SEC File No. 270-94
    OMB Control No. 3235-0085

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget requests for approval of extension on the following rule:
    Rule 17a-11 requires broker-dealers to give notice when certain 
specified events occur. Specifically, the rule requires broker-dealers 
to send notice promptly (but within 24 hours) after the broker-dealer's 
aggregate indebtedness is in excess of 1,200 percent of its net 
capital, its net capital is less than 5 percent of aggregate debt items 
or its total net capital is less than 120 percent of the broker-
dealer's required minimum net capital. In addition, broker-dealers are 
required to give notice if they fail to make and keep current books and 
records required by Rule 17a-3 or if they discover any material 
inadequacy as defined in Rule 17a-5(g).
    The notice required by the rule alerts the Commission and self-
regulatory organizations (``SROs''), which have oversight 
responsibility over broker-dealers, to those firms having financial or 
operational problems.
    Because broker-dealers are required to file pursuant to Rule 17a-11 
only when certain specified events occur, it is difficult to develop a 
meaningful figure for the cost of compliance with Rule 17a-11. It is 
anticipated that approximately 650 broker-dealers will spend 1 hour per 
year complying with Rule 17a-11. The total cost is estimated to be 
approximately 650 hours. With respect to those broker-dealers that must 
give notice under Rule 17a-11, the cost is approximately $10 per 
response for a total annual expense for all broker-dealers of $6,500.
    General comments regarding the estimated burden hours should be 
directed to the Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission 
at the address below. Any comments concerning the accuracy of the 
estimated average burden hours for compliance with Commission rules and 
forms should be directed to Michael E. Bartell, Associate Executive 
Director, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange 
Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549 and Desk 
Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.

    Dated: June 11, 1996.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15574 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33052-33053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16194]



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

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

37 CFR Part 202

[Docket No. RM 95-7A]


Registration of Claims to Copyright, Group Registration of 
Photographs

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION: Notice of public hearing; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects the July 15, 1996, deadline for 
submission of written comments concerning the rulemaking on claims to 
copyright group registration of photographs that was published in the 
Federal Register of June 6, 1996 (61 FR 28829).

DATES: Submission of all written comments is on or before Thursday, 
August 15, 1996.


[[Page 33053]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn J. Kretsinger, Acting General 
Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, 
Washington, D.C. 20024. Telephone: (202) 707-8380. Facsimile: (202) 
707-8366.

    Dated: June 20, 1996.
Marilyn J. Kretsinger,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-16194 Filed 6-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
#### Darin E. HUSSEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 49618.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 7, 1994.

Laura G. Martin, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

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

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Darin Hussey appeals from the denial of his Rule 24,035 post-conviction motion. He *833had pleaded guilty to two counts of delivery of a controlled substance in violation of § 195.211, RSMo Supp.1991. Hussey was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of nine years on each count.

The judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
GOVERNMENT DEFENDANT 

1. Adams, Jess 

2. Allen, Ernie 

3. Alstadt, Brian 

4. Beck, Anya 

5. Benson, Andrea 

6. Bethea, Gustave 

7. Butler, Christopher 

8. Cervantes, Astrid 

9. Decoufle, Christina 

l 0. Elliott, Martin 

11. Fassett, Byron 

12. Ferrer, Carl 

13 . Fichtner, Brian 

14. Figueroa, Naiomy 

15. Fraizer, Shaniqua 

16. Fritze, Derek 

17. Frost, Matthew 

NAME 

DATE 

SWORN 

10/1 0 /z..-,, 

lO /11- / 1-.~ 

lo It, /1-?> 

lo 1','2."J 

ti Iii. h?> 

tc \I-, j ,z,.-,, 

lo In li...1 

DATE 

APPEARED 

ID/io- 11 /i.?, 

10/12.-/2.., 

10/17 / 2..? 

to /ii /z...,_, 

C, /, i, - lo/i o /-i.."-

lo I 1, I 2-"? 

~o /i,,- 1<,j h-~ 
22. Hansen, Mickey 

23. Henderson, Katharine 

24. Hodges, Breahannah (Breahannah Leary) 25. Howard, Lin 

26. Hyer, Daniel 27. King, Penelope 

28. Landau, Carrie 

29. Leggat, Rob 

30. Lundstrom, Megan 31. Luria, Isaac 

32. Mackey, Tera 

33. McGoldrick, Jason 

34. Mohan, Monita 35. Mott, Detrick 

36. Murry, Eric 

37. Myles, Bradley 38. Ortiz, Destinee 39. Russo, Michael 

40. Sanders, Arshana ( Sa,rtde.,-s~ \\1111,\, A-r.:;ha.l'I(,) 

'"· 

jO/i~/1-'1) 

l0/1 I /1,:>. 

lo /1, /1.,-,, 

IO/ I 1-/2.~ 

'\o/ts, f 

\D /1c\ /1.:') 

lo /11 /1..1 

iokz....h "'> 

ie:. J," I z...?, 

\o 111 h."? 

1011,/1.,7, 

\0/1 t -l2.. / 1--? 

\o /11/i.,., 

,0/1?- li..'? 

iD/i S - \q /,,_3 

i6 /t q --z.o /'1-~ 

w/11 /v., 

to /.,2..-1 1-,_,., 

le /1 Sf I 1..', 

iol,,1~ 
10/1 '>) /1..?, io/1?,, /i.,;,, 

45. Svengard, Naeole 

46. Thai, Quoc 

to/1?,J 2.'>:, to fr;,,- 1, l2?;, 

47. Thurman, Jordan 

10 I.~/-,.:? (6 /1 %', 1...~ 

48. Way, Sarah 

*The government reserves the right to call any witnesses on the defense witness list
#### Arthur JOHNSON, Relator, v. The Honorable David WEST, Judge of the 269th District Court of Harris County, Texas; The Honorable Putnam K. Reiter, Visiting Judge of the 77th District Court of Harris County, Texas; and the Honorable Louis Moore, Judge of the 281st District Court of Harris County, Texas, Respondents.

No. 01-93-00704-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

Feb. 14, 1994.

Arthur Johnson, Houston, for relator.

Joan Miller Denton, Houston, for respondents.

Before DUGGAN, HEDGES and O’CONNOR, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

We deny the motion for leave to file the petition of Arthur Johnson, the relator, for writ of mandamus to be issued against Judges West, Reiter, and Moore.

Mr. Johnson is a pro se who has filed numerous lawsuits in the trial courts and petitions for writs of mandamus in this Court. In some cases, his complaints in this Court have been meritorious. *See, e.g., Johnson v. Smith,*857 S.W.2d 612 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, orig. proceeding). Whether his petitions have merit or not, they have all required the attention of numerous judges and staff of the court to decipher them.

In reviewing this application for writ of mandamus, we are confronted with pages and pages of complaints against a number of judges, clerks of the trial court, and opposing counsel. We are at a loss to understand exactly what Mr. Johnson complains about and why his complaints should be resolved by a writ of mandamus.

We deny leave to file because we cannot understand the nature of Mr. Johnson’s complaints. It is the burden of the relator to file a petition for writ of mandamus that shows he is entitled to the relief he requests. *Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals,*700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex.1985, orig. proceeding). Even when we read Mr. Johnson’s petition liberally, as we are required to do for a pro se litigant, *Ex parte Benavides,*801 S.W.2d 535, 537 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, dism’d w.o.j.), we still cannot determine how Mr. Johnson has been aggrieved, and why he is entitled to relief by writ of mandamus.

The motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus is OVERRULED.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3018-3019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1699]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-408-005]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

January 24, 1996.
    Take notice that on January 17, 1996, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC 
Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following substitute 
tariff sheet, to be effective February 1, 1996:

2nd Substitute Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 25

    On December 29, 1995, Columbia submitted a filing in compliance 
with the Commission's ``Suspension Order'' issued on August 31, 1995 in 
Docket RP95-408, proposing tariff sheets to become effective February 
1, 1996. Due to a clerical error the incremental surcharge associated 
with the total rate charge to Equitable Gas Company was misstated on 
Substitute Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 25. Footnote 5 on this sheet 
indicates that the incremental surcharge applicable to the assignees 
under the seller's former Rate Schedule X-70 is $1.525/Dth for the 
Reservation Charge and 8.70 cents/Dth for the commodity rate. The 
correct incremental surcharge is $.857/Dth for the Reservation Charge 
and 7.11 cents for the commodity rate. No other rates or tariffs sheets 
are affected since the error was limited to Footnote 5 which occurred 

[[Page 3019]]
following the preparation of the overall rate design.
    Columbia states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all 
firm customers interested interruptible customers, affected state 
regulatory commissions and the official service list in this 
proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such 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.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-1699 Filed 1-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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. 

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB

ORDER

Upon the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the parties’ stipulation for restraint of 

property (Doc. 1036). 

Dated this 8th day of July, 2020.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1037 Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 1
CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-38643), as amended,  pertaining to the 1997 Equity Incentive Plan of
BEI Technologies, Inc., of our report dated October 30, 2000 with respect to the
consolidated  financial  statements and schedule of BEI  Technologies,  Inc. and
subsidiaries,  included  in the  Annual  Report  (Form  10-K) for the year ended
September 30, 2000.


                                                               Ernst & Young LLP


San Francisco, California
December 20, 2000
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of KKR Financial Holdings LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), William C. Sonneborn,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Jeffrey B. Van Horn, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, each certify, 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 section13(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 ofthe Company.

 

 
| April 29, 2010 |                                                                                       |
|---------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |                                                                                       |
|                | /S/ WILLIAM C. SONNEBORN                                                                   |
|                | William C. Sonneborn*Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)*               |
|                |                                                                                       |
|                | /S/ JEFFREY B. VAN HORN                                                                    |
|                | Jeffrey B. Van Horn*Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

----
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 06a0113n.06 Filed: February 14, 2006 No. 04-6359 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. MIGUEL ANGEL RENTERIA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Before: NELSON, DAUGHTREY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges. ROGERS, Circuit Judge. The court re mands for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), because the district court sentenced Renteria-Garcia under the erroneous assumption that the federal sentencing guidelines were mandatory.
I. Renteria-Garcia pled guilty to illegal re-entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Renteria-Garcia is a nativ e and citizen of Mexico who was deported in 1998 after pleading guilty to second degree robbery. He illegally returned to the United States and was arrested on March 28, 2003, after being involved in a minor traffic accident.No. 04-6359 United States v. Renteria-Garcia

- 2 - After pleading guilty, Renteria-Gar cia was sentenced to 41 months ’ imprisonment. This was the low end of the applicable guideline range after an offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The district court did not articulate an alternative sentence if the guidelines were found advisory.
II. Because Renteria-Garcia did not object to be ing sentenced under the guidelines, this court reviews for plain error. United States v. Barnett , 398 F.3d 516, 527 (6th Cir. 2005). In reviewing for plain error, we consider whether (1) there was anerror, (2) which was plain, (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and (4) that, in this court’s discretionary view, seriously affects the fundamental fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See Johnson v. United States , 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997).
III. A sentencing court’s failure to treat the guidelines as advisory constitutes plain error as a matter of law. Barnett , 398 F.3d at 527. In the present case, it is undisputed that the district court committed plain error because it sentenced Renteria-Garcia under the now-erroneous assumption that the Guidelines are mandatory. The only issu es in this case concern the prejudice and fairness prongs. The government has not rebutted the presump tion of prejudice, and the district court offered no alternative sentence if the guidelines were found advisory. See Barnett , 398 F.3d at 529 (stating that presumption of prejudice was appropriate in the Booker context); see also United States v.No. 04-6359 United States v. Renteria-Garcia

- 3 - Trammel , 404 F.3d 397, 402 (6th Cir. 2005) (stating that being sentenced to the lowest possible sentence under the guidelines heightens the risk of prejudice). Booker violations affect fundamental fairness. Barnett , 398 F.3d at 529-30 (stating a sentence imposed under the pre- Booker regime satisfies this requirement). Renteria-Garcia is, therefore, entitled to resentencing. We therefore remand for resentencing in light of Booker ’s remedial holding that the sentencing guidelines are advisory.
VED
NOV 19 2008

Office of the Vice President for Legal Affairs,
General Counsel an
Secretary to the Board of Trustees

Oakland} 203 wilson Halt

Rochester, Michigan 48309-4401
UNIVERSITY J (248) 370:3112 Fax: (248) 370-4474

November 17, 2008

VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Chris E. Davis

Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc.
Livonia Corporate Towers

29200 Vassar Blvd., Suite 200

Livonia, Michigan 48152-2116

Re: Micah Fialka-Feldman
Dear Mr. Davis:

We are in receipt of your November 14, 2008 letter on behalf of your client, Micah Fialka-
Feldman, regarding his request to reside in Oakland University’s residence halls

Despite your repeated and conclusory assertions that Oakland University’s applicable housing
policy is discriminatory and that your client is a student because he participates in the OPTIONS
program, neither is supported by relevant, objective facts. Nor is your attempt to characterize
this matter as simply a housing issue separate and distinct from the University’s educational
goal of making housing available to students to support them in their efforts to earn degrees.

We are confident you are aware of the court decisions affording universities broad leeway in
regulating on-campus housing, such as requiring some students to live on campus, regulating
living conditions, applying housing policies differently to different groups of students, and, that
reserving housing for students seeking degrees does not violate the Fair Housing Act

We understand your client and his family are not happy with the University’s denial of their
request. However, your legal position is not well grounded in fact, warranted by existing law or
a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law. As such, if
filed, we will vigorously defend the litigation you threaten and seek appropriate sanctions
against both your firm and your client pursuant to the applicable court rules.

Very truly yours,

Vice President for Legal Affairs,
General Counsel and
Secretary to the Board of Trustees

c: Oakland University Board of Trustees
Gary D. Russi, President
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY KEITH MONK,

Petitioner, 

v.

BERRIEN COUNTY SHERIFF

DEPARTMENT, ET AL.,

Respondent. 

/

Case Number: 08-CV-14001

HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Plaintiff Anthony Keith Monk has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. 

Venue is appropriate in the judicial district where either all defendants reside or

where the claims arose. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Al-Muhaymin v. Jones, 895 F.2d 1147 (6th Cir. 1990).

Plaintiff complains of events which took place during his incarceration at the Berrien County Jail

in St. Joseph, Michigan. The Berrien County Jail is located in the Western District of Michigan.

See 28 U.S.C. § 102(b). Moreover, the defendants reside in Berrien County. Therefore, venue is

not appropriate in this district. The Court will transfer this matter to the district where the claim

arose and the defendants reside, the Western District of Michigan. 
2

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s case is transferred to the United States District Court

for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division. The Clerk of Court shall transfer the Court

file to the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division. 

 S/Bernard A. Friedman 

BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATE: September 24, 2008 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document 

was served upon counsel of record by electronic and/or first-class mail.

S/Carol Mullins 

Case Manager to Chief Judge Friedman