alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
B.4. Delinquent Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Share of outstanding farm real estate

Volume (billions of dollars) loans (percent)

Nonperforming Nonperforming 

Past due Past due

30 to 89 Past due 30 to 89 Past due

days, 90 days, Non- days, 90 days, NonPeriod Total accruing Total accruing accruing Total accuring Total accruing accruing

1992...... .6 .2 .4 .1 .3 3.2 1.2 2.0 .6 1.4

1993...... .5 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.4 .9 1.5 .5 1.1

1994...... .5 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.4 1.0 1.4 .5 .9

1995...... .6 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.4 1.0 1.4 .5 .9

1996...... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.8 1.1 1.7 .7 1.0

1997...... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.6 1.1 1.5 .6 .9

1998...... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.9 1.2 1.7 .8 1.0

1999...... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.0 .8 1.3 .5 .7

2000...... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .9 1.4 .6 .8

2001...... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.6 1.1 1.5 .3 1.2

2002...... .9 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.5 1.0 1.5 .3 1.2

1993: Q4... .5 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.4 .9 1.5 .5 1.1

1994: Q1... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 3.1 1.3 1.8 .7 1.1

 Q2... .5 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.4 .8 1.6 .6 .9

 Q3... .5 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.1 .7 1.3 .5 .8

 Q4... .5 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.4 1.0 1.4 .5 .9

1995: Q1... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 3.1 1.3 1.8 .7 1.0

 Q2... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.6 .9 1.6 .7 1.0

 Q3... .6 .2 .4 .1 .2 2.4 .9 1.6 .6 .9

 Q4... .6 .2 .3 .1 .2 2.4 1.0 1.4 .5 .9

1996: Q1... .9 .4 .5 .2 .3 3.7 1.6 2.1 1.0 1.2

 Q2... .7 .3 .5 .2 .3 3.0 1.1 1.9 .9 1.0

 Q3... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.6 .9 1.7 .7 1.0

 Q4... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.8 1.1 1.7 .7 1.0

1997: Q1... .8 .4 .4 .2 .2 3.2 1.4 1.8 .8 1.0

 Q2... .7 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.8 1.0 1.8 .8 1.0

 Q3... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.3 .8 1.4 .6 .8

 Q4... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.6 1.1 1.5 .6 .9

1998: Q1... .9 .4 .5 .2 .3 3.5 1.6 1.9 .9 1.0

 Q2... .7 .3 .5 .2 .2 2.6 1.0 1.6 .8 .8

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.5 .9 1.6 .7 .9

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.9 1.2 1.7 .8 1.0

1999: Q1... 1.1 .5 .6 .3 .3 3.6 1.6 2.0 .9 1.0

 Q2... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.7 1.0 1.7 .8 .9

 Q3... .7 .2 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .8 1.5 .7 .8

 Q4... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.0 .8 1.3 .5 .7

2000: Q1... 1.0 .4 .6 .3 .3 3.2 1.3 1.9 .9 1.0

 Q2... .9 .3 .6 .3 .3 2.7 1.0 1.7 .7 1.0

 Q3... .7 .2 .5 .2 .3 2.1 .7 1.4 .6 .8

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .9 1.4 .6 .8

2001: Q1... 1.1 .6 .5 .1 .4 3.2 1.7 1.4 .4 1.1

 Q2... .9 .4 .6 .1 .4 2.7 1.0 1.7 .4 1.2

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .4 2.5 .9 1.7 .4 1.3

 Q4... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.6 1.1 1.5 .3 1.2

2002: Q1... 1.2 .6 .6 .2 .4 3.3 1.6 1.7 .5 1.2

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .6 .2 .4 2.6 1.0 1.6 .4 1.1

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.4 .9 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q4... .9 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.5 1.0 1.5 .3 1.2

 Note. Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

24
B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                              
                                  Estimated volume                 Share of outstanding real estate farm loans
                               (millions of dollars)                                (percent)
                      ________________________________________     ___________________________________________

Year                  Total     Q1       Q2       Q3       Q4      Total      Q1        Q2        Q3       Q4
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                              
1992......    |          44       7       11       16       10      .232      .038      .058     .079     .049
1993......    |          24       2        4        7       11      .121      .010      .018     .035     .054
1994......    |          10       1        1        3        6      .048      .003      .003     .013     .026
1995......    |          12       0        3        6        4      .055     -.001      .011     .027     .016
1996......    |           7       0        1        2        4      .031      .000      .003     .009     .017
1997......    |          16      -1        0        3       14      .064     -.003     -.001     .010     .054
1998......    |           6      -1        3        0        5      .022     -.004      .009     .000     .016
1999......    |          15       0        3        5        7      .051     -.001      .011     .015     .022
2000......    |          12     -12        3        8       14      .037     -.037      .009     .022     .040
2001......    |          42      10        9        5       17      .123      .030      .027     .014     .049
2002......    |          35       8        6        5       16      .097      .022      .017     .014     .041
2003......    |        n.a.       4     n.a.     n.a.     n.a.      n.a.      .010      n.a.     n.a.     n.a.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Benjamin C. Riggs, Jr.,

d/b/a Resource Management Company

v. Civil No. 06-cv-366-JD

Janet Peshong, Personal

Representative for the Estate

of Frank Gregory

Procedural Order

Benjamin C. Riggs, doing business as Resource Management

Company, filed a motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim

asserted by Janet Peshong, Personal Representative for the Estate

of Frank Gregory. Peshong filed her objection on August 7, 2008. 

Riggs has notified the court that he intends to file a reply. 

Peshong may then move for leave to file a surreply. 

The final pretrial conference in this case is scheduled to

be held on Tuesday, September 2, 2008. The trial is scheduled

for the trial period beginning on Tuesday, September 16, 2008. 

The pending motion for summary judgment, however, cannot be

addressed until after Riggs files his reply and Peshong has an

opportunity to move for leave to file a surreply. Therefore, the

trial must be rescheduled to allow the court adequate time to

consider the motion before trial.

Case 1:06-cv-00366-JD Document 161 Filed 08/13/08 Page 1 of 2
2

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the final pretrial conference and

the trial in this case are continued and will be rescheduled

following the order on the pending motion for summary judgment. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. 

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

August 13, 2008

cc: Benjamin C. Riggs, Jr., pro se

 Peter G. Callaghan, Esq.

 

Case 1:06-cv-00366-JD Document 161 Filed 08/13/08 Page 2 of 2
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 Eagle Broadband, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending May 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
R. Royall, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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.

Date:  July 15, 2004


/s/Richard R. Royall
--------------------
Richard R. Royall,
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### Jack S. GRAY et al., Appellants, v. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Sept. 22, 1972.

Robert M. Spragens, Robert Spragens, Jr., Lebanon, for appellants.

John D. Darnell, Frankfort, for appellees.

STEINFELD, Chief Justice.

Because of a sale to a minor, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board ordered the suspension of appellants’ license to sell liquor at retail. The only defense was entrapment. On appeal the circuit court sustained the action of the board. We affirm.

In a license revocation proceeding the intent to violate the statute is not a consideration, therefore, the defense of entrapment was not available. 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 175, p. 283. In Kearns v. Aragon, 65 N.M. 119, 333 P.2d 607 (1959), it was written:

> “A proceeding * * * to revoke a liquor license is not a criminal proceeding; rather it is an administrative proceeding in the nature of a civil action.”

> 

> “Nor is the object of an administrative proceeding to revoke a liquor license intended as a punishment of the licensee. The purpose is to insure so far as possible the decent and orderly conduct of a business affecting the public health, morals, safety and welfare.”

> * * * * * *

> “Hence, revocation proceedings are not governed by the rules of law applicable to criminal prosecutions.”

*503There is authority to the contrary. See Langdon v. Board of Liquor Control, 98 Ohio App. 535, 130 N.E.2d 430 (1954), and Ray v. Board of Liquor Control, Ohio Com. PI., 154 N.E.2d 27, affirmed Ohio App., 154 N.E.2d 89.

The judgment is affirmed.

MILLIKEN, PALMORE, EDWARD P. HILL, Jr., OSBORNE and REED, JJ., concur.

NEIKIRK, J., concurs in result only.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Espiridion De LEON-VICTORINO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50145.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Espiridion De Leon-Victorino appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. De Leon contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. De Leon maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.

In *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. De Leon acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres,*but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review.

*Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,*530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; *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). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

*

 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.
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




September 2004


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: June 30, 2008
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

John MacIntosh et al.

V .

United States of America et al .

Civil No. 06-cv-459-JD

JUDGMEN T

In accordance with the following, judgment is hereby entered : Order dated October 20,

2008 by United States District Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. and the Stipulation of Dismissal

filed by the parties on March 31, 2009 .

By the Court,

/s/Daniel J. Lynch

Daniel J. Lynch

Chief Deputy Clerk

March 31, 2009

cc: Kevin Dugan, Esq.

Jared Green, Esq .

Gretchen Leah Witt, Esq.

T. David Plourde, Esq.

Ronald Lajoie, Esq.

Jennifer Jones, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00459-JD Document 64 Filed 03/31/09 Page 1 of 1
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22280]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1530-000]

Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation; Notice of Filing

September 17, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 12, 2008, Central Hudson Gas and 
Electric Corporation filed a notice of termination of its FERC Electric 
Rate Schedule 68, an agreement dated July 11, 1985 with the New York 
Power Authority, pursuant to 18 CFR 35.15 and 131.53.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 3, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22280 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
**
**Exhibit 32.1**

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), the undersigned officer of OneSpaWorld Holdings Limitedcertifies that (1) this Annual Report of OneSpaWorld Holdings Limited (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2018, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (this “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
/s/ Glenn J. FusfieldGlenn J. FusfieldPresident and Chief Executive Officer
May 6, 2019 
**
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-105-JD

Vincent Chaney

O R D E R

The defendant has filed a motion to sever Counts I and II

from Count III for purposes of trial.

Counts I and II involve events that occurred 19 months

before the events in Count III. Counts I and II involve

different facts, location, and witnesses from those involved in

Count III. The 19 month gap between the offenses presents a risk

of jury confusion. In addition, Counts II and III charge similar

offenses which also raises the risk that if the jury should find

the defendant guilty of Count II, that would weigh heavily

against the defendant when the jury considered Count III.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a) the court finds that the

joinder of Counts I and II with Count III for trial appears to

prejudice the defendant. Therefore, Counts I and II are severed

from Count III for purposes of trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00105-PB Document 54 Filed 07/09/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The defendant's motion is granted.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

July 9, 2008

cc: Robert G. Daniels, Esquire

William E. Morse, Esquire

Case 1:06-cr-00105-PB Document 54 Filed 07/09/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-88-01/02-PB

Anthony Carder,

Deborah Carder

O R D E R

I hereby recuse myself from this case and direct the clerk to assign it to another judge.

SO ORDERED.

September 13, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: William Morse, Esq.

Steven Gordon, Esq.

Michael Sheehan, Esq.

U. S. Marshal

U. S. Probation 

Case 1:07-cr-00088-SM Document 14 Filed 09/13/07 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55029-55030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22231]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Permits for Incidental Taking of Endangered or Threatened 
Species.
    Form Number(s): None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0230.
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Burden Hours: 472.
    Number of Respondents: 13.
    Average Hours per Response: Permit applications, 80 hours; permit 
reports, 8 hours; and transfer of permits, 40 hours.
    Needs and Uses: The Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits the 
taking of endangered species. Section 10 of the ESA allows for certain 
exceptions to the prohibitions, such as a ``take'' that is incidental 
to an otherwise lawful activity. The corresponding regulations provide 
application and reporting requirements for such exceptions. The 
required information, for which renewal of approval is being requested, 
is used to evaluate the proposed activity (application) and ongoing 
activities (reports) and is necessary for NMFS to ensure the 
conservation of the species under the ESA.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; State, 
Local or Tribal Government.
    Frequency: Annually, on occasion and one-time only.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.

[[Page 55030]]

    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#54301c2d3a313f14303b377a333b22"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b7f5362757e705b7f7478357c746d">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number (202) 395-7285, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f0b491869994afa29f83849b9582b09f9d92de959f80de979f86"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="feba9f88979aa1ac918d8a959b8cbe91939cd09b918ed0999188">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 18, 2008.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
 [FR Doc. E8-22231 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit (10)(a)

  

  

  

  

  

  

  Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

  

  

  

  

  We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
    Post-Effective Amendment No. 64 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-18419) and Amendment No. 511 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-05721), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2019, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The
    Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

   

  

  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

  

  

  

  

  

  

  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

  September 6, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

V .

J . Eugene Felch . IV

Iwonna A Felch

Civil No . 06-cv-276-PB

REPORT AND RECO11M ENDATION

The government proved by proffer that it is owed

$1,005,337 .53 for past taxes as of the judgment of November 26,

2007 plus interest accruing from that date .

I recommend that the court enter the attached "Final and

Default Judgment and Order for a Judicial Sale . "

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice . Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court's order . See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Comm . v . Gordon , 979 F .2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir . 1992) ; United

States v . Valencia-Copete , 792 F .2d 4, 6(lst Cir . 1986) .

Date : April 7, 200 8

cc : Alex T . Case, Esq .

James E . Brown, Esq .

J . Eugene Felch, IV, pro se

Iwonna A . Felch, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00276-PB Document 17 Filed 04/07/08 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22195]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: [to be published].

Status: Closed Meeting.

Place: 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC.

Date and Time of Previously Announced Meeting: Thursday, September 18, 
2008 at 1 p.m.

Change in the meeting: Cancellation of Meeting.
    The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, September 18, 2008 has 
been cancelled.
    For further information please contact the Office of the Secretary 
at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: September 18, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22195 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P