alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53856-53857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21678]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Ultra-Deepwater Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

    This notice announces a meeting of the Ultra-Deepwater Advisory 
Committee. Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat.

[[Page 53857]]

770) requires that notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal 
Register.

DATES: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 8 a.m. to 12 p.m.; 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Crowne Plaza Houston North Greenspoint, 425 North Sam 
Houston Parkway, Houston, TX 77067.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elena Melchert, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, Washington, DC 20585. Phone: 
202-586-5600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Committee: The purpose of the Ultra-Deepwater 
Advisory Committee is to provide advice on development and 
implementation of programs related to ultra-deepwater natural gas and 
other petroleum resources to the Secretary of Energy; provide comments 
and recommendations and priorities for the Department of Energy Annual 
Plan per requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Title IX, 
Subtitle J, Section 999.

Tentative Agenda

7:30 a.m.-8 a.m. Registration
8 a.m.-12 p.m. Welcome & Introductions, Opening Remarks by the 
Designated Federal Officer and by the Chair, Subcommittee presentations 
and reports.
1 p.m.-4:30 p.m. Facilitated Discussions by the members regarding 
Subcommittee reports; approval of final Committee recommendations, and 
instructions to the Editing Subcommittee.
4:30 p.m.-5 p.m. Public Comments
5 p.m. Adjourn

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The 
Designated Federal Officer, the Chairman of the Committee, and a 
Facilitator will lead the meeting for the orderly conduct of business. 
If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you 
may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make 
oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should 
contact Elena Melchert at the address or telephone number listed above. 
You must make your request for an oral statement at least five business 
days prior to the meeting, and reasonable provisions will be made to 
include the presentation on the agenda. Public comment will follow the 
10 minute rule.
    Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 60 days at the Freedom of Information Public 
Reading Room, Room 1G-033, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except federal holidays.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on September 12, 2008.
Rachel Samuel,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-21678 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 

v. Case No. 04-cr-191-01-SM

Phillip Scott Scherrer,

 Defendant

O R D E R

Defendant Scherrer’s motion to continue the trial is granted (document no.

41). Trial has been rescheduled for the April 2010 trial period. Defendant

Scherrer shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than February 16,

2010. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be effective

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial,

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Case 1:04-cr-00191-SM Document 42 Filed 02/08/10 Page 1 of 2
Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for April 9, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. 

Jury selection will take place on April 20, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

February 8, 2010

cc: Liam Scully, Esq.

Robert Kinsella, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

2

Case 1:04-cr-00191-SM Document 42 Filed 02/08/10 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
        32.2
   Certification
        of Chief Financial Officer
 Pursuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  C.W.
            Gilluly, Chief
            Financial Officer of AMASYS Corporation (the “Company”) certifies in his
            capacity as an officer of the Company that he has reviewed the Report
            of the
            Company on Form 10-QSB for quarter ended September 30, 2006 and that
            to the best
            of his knowledge:
  1.        
            the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and
            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.
  The
            purpose of this
            statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350
            of
            the United States code, as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
            of 2002.
  A
            signed original of this
            written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company
            and
            will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
            Commission or it staff upon request.
 December
            18,
            2007                                                                /s/
            C.W. Gilluly,
            Ed.D.
 C.W.
            Gilluly, Ed.D.
 Principal
            Finance
            Officer
 (Chief
            Financial
            Officer)
Certifications

I, Richard Simpson, certify that:


1.	I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Benchmark 2018-B6 Mortgage Trust (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);


2.	Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;


4.	Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and


5.	All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.


In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  KeyBank National Association; Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; U.S. Bank National Association; Wells Fargo Bank, National Association; CWCapital Asset Management LLC; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; Computershare Trust Company, National Association;  CoreLogic Solutions, LLC; and Wilmington Trust, National Association.



Date:	March 30, 2023

/s/ Richard Simpson ___________________Richard SimpsonPresident, Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

Benchmark 2018-B6 Certifications

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50395 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PEDRO THIESSEN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. P-97-CR-229-2

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1998 Before JOLLY, SMITH and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Pedro Thiessen appeals his sentence following a guilty-plea conviction for importation of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He challenges the district court’s finding that he was not entitled to a reduction in his offense level for his minor role in the offenses. We do not address Thiessen’s argument regarding Stinson v. United States , 508 U.S. 36 (1993), and the commentary to § 3B1.2 because the district court did not apply a “substantially less culpable” standard. Although the district court found initiallyNo. 98-50395 -2- that Thiessen was less culpable than Harms in the overall scheme, in light of the length of the proposed journey from Mexico to Canada and all that entailed, the district court determined that Thiessen and Harms must have “joined up in a partnership” to carry out the offenses charged. The court’s finding that Thiessen was not a minor participant is not clearly erroneous. The district court’s determination that Thiessen was less culpable than Harms or other participants did not, standing alone, entitle him to the two-point reduction of a minor participant. See United States v. Zuniga , 18 F.3d 1254, 1261 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Thomas , 932 F.2d 1085, 1092 (5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALEXANDER W. HARLAN,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 8:23CR125

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [22]. 

Counsel needs additional time to negotiate a resolution short of trial. For good cause 

shown,

IT IS ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [22] is granted, as 

follows:

1. The jury trial now set for January 29, 2024, is continued to March 4, 2024.

2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests 

of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising 

as a result of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today’s 

date and March 4, 2024, shall be deemed excludable time in any 

computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to 

grant a continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for 

effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).

DATED: January 16, 2024.

 BY THE COURT:

s/ Susan M. Bazis

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00125-RFR-SMB Doc # 23 Filed: 01/16/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 42
Exhibit 32.2

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

** **

** **

In connection with the Annual Report onForm 10-K/A of Nocera, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2018, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Charles K. Njuguna, Chief Financial Officerof the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)        Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.

 

 

 

/s/ Yin Chieh Cheng                    

Yin Chieh Cheng

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)

 

 

  October 30, 2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,779,077
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,082,284
<ALLOWANCES>                                 4,899,746
<INVENTORY>                                    716,991
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,070,762
<PP&E>                                         733,930
<DEPRECIATION>                                 221,231
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,583,461
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,771,273
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        4,560,158
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           363
<OTHER-SE>                                   (768,327)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,583,461
<SALES>                                      7,328,477
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,328,477
<CGS>                                          469,476
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,383,773
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,408,029
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,047,236
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1523
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (435,806)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (435,806)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (203,658)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (435,806)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
(173 La. 793)

#### POLMAN v. CONVERSE & CO.

No. 30692.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 30, 1931.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1932.

McCloskey & Benedict and Wm. C. McLeod, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

John R. Perez, of New Orleans, for appel-lee.

■ST. PAUL, J.

This is a suit to recover possession of a promissory note for $5,000, signed by the plaintiff and held by the defendant. The cause of action is alleged want of consideration. The defense is that the note was acquired in due course before maturity.

It appears the note was given to one Gable in payment for stock in a corporation which afterwards proved to have been insolvent at the time the note was given.

Gable sold the note to the defendant, before maturity for $3,000 cash and the remission of some small indebtedness. But before taking the note, the defendant telephoned the plaintiff and inquired if the note was genuine; and defendant assured plaintiff that it was, and made no other comment.

Plaintiff claims that the defendant knew that the note was given as the price of said stock, and that he also knew that the stock was worthless. The evidence does not bear out this contention. We are satisfied that the defendant took the note in good faith. Cf. Act No. 64 of 1904, § 56 (Negotiable Instrument Law).

Two suits are produced to show that the defendant knew the condition of the corporation and the worthlessness of its stock at the time he took the note, because (allegedly) these two suits, brought by himself, on similar notes obtained from the same Gable, were defended on the ground that the said stock was worthless. But the suits show no such thing.- The first suit was defended on the ground that the note had been given for other securities than said stock and that said stock had been substituted for such securities; but the suit was won by this defendant. The other suit was defended on the ridiculous proposition that it was agreed at the time of giving the note that it was not to be paid, but was to be returned to the drawer with a profit. That suit was compromised for some reason that does not appear in the record.

There is no merit to plaintiff’s claim.

The defendant has reconvened and asked for judgment on the note. He is entitled to such judgment.

Decree.

Eor the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is reversed and it is now ordered that plaintiff’s demand be rejected at his costs in both courts. it is further ordered that the defendants, Goiiverse & Co., a partnership composed of Harry I-I. Converse and William V. Converse, do now, have judgment and recover from -plaintiff, Cornelius Polman, the full sum of $5,000, with interest at 8 per cent, per annum from June Í9, 1928, until paid, together with 10 per cent, attorney’s fees on principal and interest and all costs of both courts.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,823
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  176,820
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,547
<INVENTORY>                                     91,825
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               315,262
<PP&E>                                         448,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                 226,061
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 861,379
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          172,900
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        35,846
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     287,631
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   861,379
<SALES>                                        580,610
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               584,700
<CGS>                                          312,266
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  401,378
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               157,892
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   160
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,941
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,329
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,450
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,879
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,879
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, 

Defendant. 

8:23CR109 

ORDER 

 

The court has been presented a Financial Affidavit (CJA Form 23) signed by the 

above-named defendant in support of a request for appointed counsel. After a review of 

the Financial Affidavit, I find that the above-named defendant is eligible for appointment 

of counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. §3006A, and Amended 

Criminal Justice Act Plan for the District of Nebraska. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

The Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska is appointed to 

represent the above named defendant in this matter. In the event that the Federal 

Public Defender accepts this appointment, the Federal Public Defender shall forthwith 

file an appearance in this matter. In the event the Federal Public Defender should 

decline this appointment for reason of conflict or on the basis of the Criminal Justice Act 

Plan, the Federal Public Defender shall forthwith provide the court with a draft 

appointment order (CJA Form 20) bearing the name and other identifying information of 

the CJA Panel attorney identified in accordance with the Criminal Justice Act Plan for 

this district. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide a copy of this order to 

the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska. 

 DATED this 22nd day of May, 2023. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Susan M. Bazis 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00109-BCB-SMB Doc # 12 Filed: 05/22/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 13
177 La. 556

#### IRISH LEVY ELECTRIC CO., Inc., v. MOSS.

No. 31997.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 29, 1933.

Frank T. Doyle and Isaac S. Heller, both of New Orleans, for appellant

Theodore Roehl and Joseph O. Schwartz, both of New Orleans, for Hart Electrical Co., Inc.

ODOM, Justice.

We are asked to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the case is now before the court without sufficient appeal bond as the law requires.

The facts concerning the appeal bond furnished by the appellant are set out in our opinion handed down on Monday, February 27, 1933. See Irish Levy Electric Company, Inc., v. Mike Moss, 176 La. 882, 147 So. 22.

For the reasons therein assigned, we ordered that the ease be remanded to the district court, “with instructions to inquire into and pass upon the sufficiency of the appeal bond herein and the solvency of the surety thereon and if the bond he found defective or the surety thereon insolvent, that appellant be required in the manner and form and as provided by Act No. 112 of 1916, to furnish a new and satisfactory appeal bond with a solvent surety or sureties for the amount required by law and to make due report thereof to this court.” In this connection, see Harnischfeger Sales Corporation v. Sternberg Company, Inc. (La. Sup.) 148 So. 446, opinion handed down Monday, May 1, 1933.

A certified copy of our opinion and order in the present ease was transmitted to the district court and registered. Whereupon the appellee ruled the appellant to show cause why the Union Indemnity Company, surety on this appeal bond, should not be declared insolvent and therefore worthless as a surety, and why the appeal bond should not, for that reason, be declared insufficient, inadequate, and worthless, and not such a bond as the law requires, and why the appellant, Mike Moss, should not be ordered to furnish a new appeal bond within four days. The rule was made returnable on March 29, 1933, and was heard on that date; the attorney for defendant-appellant being present.

Evidence was introduced showing that the Union Indemnity Company, surety on the original appeal bond, was placed in the hands of receivers by judgment of court subsequent to the date on which the appeal bond was executed. Upon the showing made, the district court found and held that the surety on the bond was insolvent and insufficient. The rule was made absolute, and it was ordered that the appellant furnish a new appeal bond with solvent surety on or before April 4,1933. This order was rendered, signed, and filed on March 29,1933; counsel for appellant being present.'

Certified copies of the proceedings in the district court, together with a certificate of the clerk of that court showing that no new bond had been filed up to April 5, 1933, are before us.

The appellant having failed to file new bond as directed, the appeal, being now lodged in this court without sufficient appeal bond as the law requires, must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.