alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

Certificate 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 Piedmont Community Bank Group, Inc. (the Bank) on Form 10-QSB
for the period ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Drew Hulsey, Chief Executive Officer of the Bank, and I, Julie Simmons, Chief Financial Officer of
the Bank, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | To my knowledge, 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 Bank.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Drew HulseyDrew Hulsey, C.E.O.(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Julie SimmonsJulie Simmons, C.F.O.(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


November 14, 2007
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 16

- 00147

- CR

DAVION LATRONE YOUNG, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court

Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 26371

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Davion Latrone Young attempts to appeal his conviction of sexual assault of a child. 1 This

Court is without jurisdiction to consider Young’s appeal because he had no right of appeal due to

his plea agreement with the State. Moreover, Young waived any right of app eal he might have

otherwise had and has not obtained the trial court’s permission to appeal.

The trial court ’s certification of right of appeal filed in this matter shows that this was a

plea bargain case in which Young had no right of appeal. The Texas Legislature has granted a

very lim ited right of appeal in plea bargain cases. Rule 25.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure details that right as follows:

(2) . . . . In a plea bargain case

— that is, a case in which a defendant ’ s

plea was guilty or nolo c o ntendere and the punishment did not exceed the

punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant

— a

defendant may appeal only:

(A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and

ruled on before trial, or

(B) after getting the trial court ’ s permission to appeal.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a ) ( 2). The appellate record filed in this matte r contains no written motions

filed by Young and ruled on before trial. Further, there is no indication in the record that Young

obtained the trial court’s permiss ion to appeal. To the contrary, the trial court’s certification

indicates that Young has no right of appeal. Pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure , this Court is required to dismiss an appeal if, as in this case, the trial co urt ’ s

certification indicates no right of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d).

1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 22.011 (West 2011).3

On August 9, 2016 , we informed Young of the apparent defect in our jurisdiction over his

appeal and afforded him the opportunity to respond and, if possible, to cure such defect. Young

did not respond to our letter.

Because Young’s plea agreement prevents an appeal and because the trial co urt’s

certification correctly indicates that Young is without a right of appeal , we dismiss this appeal for

want of jurisdiction.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: August 25, 2016

Date Decided: August 26, 2016

Do Not Publish
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 148 (Thursday, July 31, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 44755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17518]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, July 23, 2008, 8 a.m. to July 
24, 2008, 6 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal Register on July 
1, 2008, 78 FR 37469.
    The meeting will be held August 14, 2008 to August 15, 2008. The 
meeting time and location remains the same.
    The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: July 23, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-17518 Filed 7-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
**Exhibit 32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


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


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





I,
      Michael E. Healy, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ShoreTel, Inc. for the quarter ended
      September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
      in
      such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
      financial condition and results of operations of ShoreTel, Inc.




Dated:
                November 13, 2007
            
            By:
            
            /s/
                Michael E. HealyName:
            
            Michael
                E. HealyTitle:
            
            Chief
                Financial Officer(Principal
                Accounting and Financial Officer)




This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002 and is not deemed filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by referenced into any filing
      of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934 (whether made on or before or after the date of this Report),
      irrespective at any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 23-0312

_________________

T.M.B., by and through DARCY SAUNDERS,

CAPITAL CITY CASE MANAGEMENT,

Guardian and Conservator,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

WEST MONT and STATE OF MONTANA,

 Defendants and Appellees.

O R D E R

_________________

On June 5, 2023, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal in this matter. In that Notice, 

Appellant asserted that transcripts had been ordered in accordance with M. R. App. P. 8(3). 

Appellant further filed a contemporaneous Notice of Transcripts Deemed Necessary for 

Appeal. On June 15, 2023, the District Court record was filed in this Court. To date, no 

transcripts have been filed.

IT IS ORDERED that, on or before December 15, 2023, Appellant shall file a report 

on the status of this appeal. Failure to file a status report within that time will result in 

dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice.

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all parties.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 15 2023

11/15/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0312
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARRYL ORRIN BAKER,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION 09-10360

v. DISTRICT JUDGE NANCY G. EDMUNDS

BANNUM PLACE OF SAGINAW, LLC; MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARK A. RANDON

LATOYA BURNSIDE, DIRECTOR;

DOROTHY JONES, EMPLOYEE SPECIALIST;

CLARINET MCFADDEN; VERTRICE ROBY;

MR. LYONS; HENRY HOBSON; MS. FRIERSON,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY,

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery, or in the

Alternative, to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute. (Dkt. No. 73). Defendants ask the Court to

require Plaintiff to schedule a date for his deposition as well as respond to their interrogatories

and requests for production. In the alternative, Defendants ask the Court to dismiss the case for

failure to prosecute.

On June 4, 2012, Defendants filed a “Renewal of Defendants’ Motion to Compel

Discovery and Motion to Extend Discovery.” (Dkt. No. 82). Defendants requested the same

relief as in their original motion.

On June 7, 2012, Judge Nancy G. Edmunds entered an Order Granting in Part and

Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery and to Extend Discovery Dates. (Dkt.

-1-

2:09-cv-10360-NGE-MAR Doc # 90 Filed 08/08/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 664
No. 83). Judge Edmunds required Plaintiff to: (1) respond to Defendants’ interrogatories and

requests for production of documents by June 25, 2012; and (2) submit to a deposition by June

29, 2012. Finally, Judge Edmunds indicated that the Plaintiff’s case will be dismissed if Plaintiff

fails to cooperate with discovery. (Dkt. No. 83). 

While Plaintiff appeared for a deposition on July 2, 2012, Defendants claim he did not

respond to their interrogatories and requests for production. However, Defendants have filed a

Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 88). Whether Plaintiff’s case is

dismissed for failure to cooperate with discovery will be addressed when the Court decides this

pending motion.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion (Dkt. No. 73) is DENIED AS

MOOT.

 s/Mark A. Randon 

Mark A. Randon

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: August 8, 2012 

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the parties of record on this

date, August 8, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Melody Miles 

Case Manager

-2-

2:09-cv-10360-NGE-MAR Doc # 90 Filed 08/08/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 665
aaedaOaad Uesty oad oustees octt5

Dockets.Justia.com
EXHIBIT
20


Office of the Vice President
for Academic Affairs and Provost

Rochester, Michigan 48309-4496
(248) 370-2190. “Pax: (248) 370-4475

Oakland
UNIVERSITY,

22 Auignst 2007
To: Jennifer Gilroy

Office of the Registrar
From: Vitinder K. Moudgi

‘Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost.
Re: Curriculum Code Requests

‘On tlie recommeridation of Mary Otto, Dean, School of Education and Human Services, the
Office of Academic. Affairs Teconimends the adoption of a distinct. rubric for a continuing
education program intended to serve students with mild cognitive disabilities. Students enrolled
in these courses atenot regularly admitted OU‘ students and do not receive credit toward adegree,

PST Post Secondary Transition

Thank you for your assistance,

ce Mary Otto, Dean, School of Education and Human Services
“Bob Wiggins, Associate Dean, School of Education and Human Services
Steve Shablin, Registrar
Tamara Machmut-Jhashi, Interim Assistant Provost

EDYATION AND OPPORTUNITY



School of Education and Human Services
Office of the Dean
Room 415 Pawley Hall

Oakland] Rochester, Michigan 48309.4494
UNIVERSITY

TO; Virinder Moudgil
FROM: Bob Wiggins
DATE: Atigust 22, 2007

RE: New Post Secondary Transition Courses

During the winter semester 1 proposed and got approval from Dean Otto and yourself for a new-

continuing education program that would serve students with mild cognitive disabilities, The
Program consists of a combination of courses that addtess the Specific leaming needs of these
students and opportunities for these students to audit regular university courses as appropriate,

These students are not regularly admitted OU students and do not get credit toward a degtee.
‘Thetefore, we have created a distinct rubric (PST) for these Continuing Education courses, Since
this is'a new rubric, the Registrar needs your approval,

The courses that have been created for September 2007 are;

PST 0104C - introduction to Self-Advoeacy (2 CEU)
PST 0111C - Learning Seminar | (4 CEU)

PST 0121C- Organization and Technolowy (2 CEU)
PST 0130C - Academic Special Topics | (4 CEU)
PST 0140C - Academic Special Topics Hl (4 CEU)

Can you please authorize the Registrar to create the PST rubric and’build these courses in the Banner
system? ’

‘Thank you.

OAKO00031
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**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 Boatatopia (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen N. Causey, President and Principal Accounting 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | /s/ Stephen N. Causey |
|--------|-----------------------|

|   | Stephen N. Causey, |
|--------|--------------------|

|   | President and |
|--------|---------------|

|   | Principal Accounting Officer |
|--------|------------------------------|

|   | May 15, 2008 |
|--------|--------------|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2353

JANINE PERRY WEBER,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MELISSA SUE DANCY OLIVER,

Defendant – Appellant,

and

LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Lincoln 

Financial Group,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (2:13-cv-00031-RGD-LRL)

Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: June 6, 2014

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan L. Stone, NORRIS & ST. CLAIR P.C., Virginia Beach, 

Virginia, Steven G. Owen, COURTHOUSE LAW GROUP, Virginia Beach, 

Virginia, for Appellant. Samuel W. Meekins, Jr., Cartwright R.
2

Reilly, WOLCOTT RIVERS & GATES, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Melissa Sue Dancy Oliver appeals from the district 

court’s judgment granting Janine Perry Weber’s motion to dismiss 

Oliver’s claims against Weber. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s judgment. Weber v. Oliver, No. 2:13-cv-00031-RGD-LRL 

(E.D. Va. Oct. 31, 2013). 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
[Cite as State v. Oliver, 2016-Ohio-3016.]

STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

SEVENTH DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

V. 

DWAYNE A. OLIVER 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 15 MA 0097 

OPINION 

AND 

JUDGMENT ENTRY 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion for Reconsideration 

JUDGMENT: Denied. 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee Attorney Paul Gains 

Mahoning County Prosecutor 

Attorney Ralph Rivera 

Assistant Prosecutor 

21 West Boardman Street, 6th Floor 

Youngstown, Ohio 44503 

For Defendant-Appellant Dwayne Oliver, Pro-Se 

Inmate No. 53486060 

P.O. Box 10 

Lisbon, Ohio 44432 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Mary DeGenaro 

Hon. Gene Donofrio 

Hon. Cheryl L. Waite 

 

 

 Dated: May 16, 2016 
[Cite as State v. Oliver, 2016-Ohio-3016.]

PER CURIAM. 

{¶1} On March 24, 2016, this Court denied Appellant Dwayne Oliver's first 

motion for reconsideration from his direct appeal as untimely. State v. Oliver, 7th Dist. 15 

MA 97, 2016-Ohio-1250. On April 13, 2016, Oliver filed a "Motion to File Delayed Motion 

for Reconsideration Based on Good Cause" and a "Motion of Reconsideration of Opinion 

and Judgment Entered on March 24, 2016." 

{¶2} "A motion for reconsideration can be entertained even though it was filed 

beyond the ten-day limitation provided for by the rule if the motion raises an issue of 

sufficient importance to warrant entertaining it beyond the ten-day limit." State v. Dew, 

7th Dist. No. 08MA62, 2014-Ohio-4042, ¶ 7. Oliver contends that he mailed his motion to 

the clerk on January 7, 2016, but has no understanding as to how or why the clerk did 

not file it until January 19, 2016. 

{¶3} Oliver contends that he has raised an issue of sufficient importance to 

justify entertaining his motion for reconsideration beyond the ten day time limit. However, 

a review of his motions demonstrate that he continues to argue the same assignments of 

error that he raised in his direct appeal. The purpose of reconsideration is not to reargue 

one's appeal based on dissatisfaction with the logic used and conclusions reached by an 

appellate court. Victory White Metal Co. v. N.P. Motel Syst. Inc., 7th Dist. 04 MA 245, 

2005-Ohio-3828, ¶ 2. 

{¶4} Because Oliver has failed to meet the requisite time frame and failed to 

raise a sufficiently important issue, his delayed motion for reconsideration is hereby 

denied, as is his request for reconsideration of this Court's March 24, 2016 decision. 

 

DeGenaro, J., concurs. 

Donofrio, P. J., concurs. 

Waite, J., concurs.
#### Larry Wayne MORGAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 1037-85.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

May 18, 1988.

On State’s petition for discretionary review: judgment of the Court of Appeals reversed and judgment of the trial court affirmed.

CLINTON, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting statement in *Jefferson v. State,*Tex.Cr.App., 1988, 751 S.W.2d 502.

TEAGUE, CAMPBELL and DUNCAN, JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in *Jefferson v. State,*Tex.Cr.App., 1988, 751 S.W.2d 502.
Exhibit 32.4



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 Annual Report of RCN Corporation (the Company) on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Patrick T. Hogan, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Patrick T.
Hogan

Patrick T. Hogan

April 29, 2004



This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to RCN Corporation
and will be retained by RCN Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: REESTABLISHMENT OF THE

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS WITHIN 

THE 37th JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

:

:

NO. 486 

MAGISTERIAL RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of May, 2022, upon consideration of the Petition to 

Reestablish the Magisterial Districts of the 37th Judicial District (Forest and Warren 

Counties) of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, it is hereby ORDERED AND 

DECREED that the Petition, which provides for the reestablishment of Magisterial District 

37-4-03 within Forest County, to be effective immediately, is granted; and that the 

Petition, which provides for the reestablishment of Magisterial Districts 37-2-01, 37-3-01, 

and 37-4-01, within Warren County, to be effective immediately, is granted.

Said Magisterial Districts shall be as follows:

Magisterial District 37-2-01

Magisterial District Judge Raymond F. Zydonik

City of Warren

Cherry Grove Township

Sheffield Township

Magisterial District 37-3-01

Magisterial District Judge Laura S. Bauer

Clarendon Borough

Sugar Grove Borough

Conewango Township

Elk Township

Farmington Township

Glade Township

Mead Township
- 2 -

Pine Grove Township

Sugar Grove Township

Magisterial District 37-4-01

Magisterial District Judge Todd A. Woodin

Bear Lake Borough

Tidioute Borough

Youngsville Borough

Brokenstraw Township

Columbus Township

Deerfield Township

Eldred Township

Freehold Township

Limestone Township

Pittsfield Township

Pleasant Township

Southwest Township

Spring Creek Township

Triumph Township

Watson Township

Magisterial District 37-4-03

Magisterial District Judge Daniel L. Miller

Tionesta Borough

Barnett Township

Green Township

Harmony Township

Hickory Township

Howe Township

Jenks Township

Kingsley Township

Tionesta Township
Case 2:17-cv-04307-SPL Document 102 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:17-cv-04307-SPL Document 102 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 125 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16486]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 061496B]


Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Correction

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Correction to Sentence in Meeting Agenda

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

SUMMARY: The agenda pertaining to public meetings of the Gulf of Mexico 
Fishery Management Council (Council) was published on June 21, 1996.

DATES: The meetings will be held on July 15-18, 1996.

ADDRESSES: These meetings will be held at the Sheraton Grand Hotel, 
4860 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, FL; telephone: 813-286-4050.
    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 5401 
West Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 331, Tampa, FL 33609.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director, 
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 228-2815.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The initial agenda was published on June 21, 
1996 (61 FR 31924-31925). A sentence in the agenda pertaining to the 
Council's public meeting is being corrected because it contained a 
typographical error in the second column, line 20. The revised sentence 
is as follows: ``The Council's proposed action is to prohibit the use 
of traps south of 24 deg.54', north latitude (i.e. off Dry Tortugas, 
Florida).''

Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with 
disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other 
auxiliary aids should be directed to Anne Alford at the Council (see 
ADDRESSES) by July 8, 1996.

    Dated: June 21, 1996.
Donald J. Leedy,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-16486 Filed 6-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F