alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57101-57102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23143]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a 
Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean 
Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act 
of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409 and 46 CFR 515).
    Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should 
not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, 
DC 20573.

Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation Intermediary 
Applicants

Pacific Freights International, 56-361 Peawini Place, Kahuku, HI 96731. 
Officers: Epeli Katia, Managing Partner, (Qualifying Individual), 
Vilisoni Kotobalavu, CEO.
Dart Express (LAX) LLC, 821 W. Arbor Vitae Street, Inglewood, CA 90301. 
Officers: John J. Hafferty, Vice President, Edward M. Piza, Vice 
President, (Qualifying Individual).
ACS Logistics Inc., 5005 W. Royal Lane, Suite 198, Irving, TX 75063. 
Officer: George S. Jernigan, Asst. Secretary, (Qualifying Individual).

Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder 
Transportation Intermediary Applicants

Agiloc International, Inc., 400 Oyster Point Boulevard, So. San 
Francisco, CA 94080. Officers: Bugiharto Suheman, CEO, (Qualifying 
Individual), Jubily Boy, Secretary.

[[Page 57102]]

Crane Worldwide Logistics LLC dba McLean Cargo Specialists, 
Incorporated, 16680 Central Green Blvd., Houston, TX 77032. Officers: 
Keith Winters, COO, (Qualifying Individual), John Magee, CEO.
Global Distribution and Logistics, LLC, 355 E. Harvard Circle, South 
Elgin, IL 60177. Officer: John J. Yarwood, Member, (Qualifying 
Individual).
Dart Express (SFO) LLC, 1162 Cherry Avenue, San Bruno, CA 94066. 
Officers: John J. Hafferty, Vice President, Edward M. Piza, Vice 
President, (Qualifying Individuals).
SDS Global Logistics, Inc., 52-09 31st Place, Long Island, NY 11101. 
Officer: Steve Soricillo, Vice President, (Qualifying Individual).

    Dated: September 26, 2008.
Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-23143 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-19-PB

Anthony Seward

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for June 2, 2009 citing the need for additional

time for newly-appointed counsel to file a motion to suppress

evidence and properly prepare for trial. The government does not

object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from June 2, 2009 to September 1, 2009. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:08-cr-00019-SM Document 44 Filed 05/28/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on August

24, 2009 at 3:15 p.m.

No further continuances absent good cause shown.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

May 28, 2009

cc: Michael Ramsdell, Esq.

Debra Walsh, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00019-SM Document 44 Filed 05/28/09 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Reid, Appellant.

[744 NYS2d 405]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Stackhouse, J.), rendered February 3, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

In this case where the court submitted to the jury the lesser included offense of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by a comment by the prosecutor in summation which, without referring specifically to defendant, inadvertently revealed to the jury the likelihood that a person convicted of seventh-degree possession would receive a lenient sentence. The court sustained defendant’s objection, struck the offending comment, and immediately delivered a thorough instruction to the jury that it should not consider punishment, which the jury presumably followed *(see, People v Davis,*58 NY2d 1102). Accordingly, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion *(see, People v Santiago, 52*NY2d 865).

Defendant’s belated objections failed to preserve his claim that he was deprived of a fair trial by the court’s questioning of the People’s witnesses *(compare, People v Charleston,*56 NY2d 886, *with People v Yut Wai Tom,*53 NY2d 44, 55), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that although the better course would have been for the court to restrain itself from trying to clarify ambiguities in the People’s documentation regarding the distinction in time between the defendant’s apprehension and arrest, this point was adequately pursued by defense counsel during cross-examination of the police officer. Hence, the court’s questions could not have interfered with defendant’s defense *(see, People v Moulton,*43 NY2d 944). Furthermore, the court’s instruction that the subject matter of the court’s questioning of witnesses remained a factual issue for the jury served to prevent any possible prejudice.

We perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining •claims. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
Case 1:11-cv-02251-CMA-MJW Document 19 Filed 10/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Case 1:11-cv-02251-CMA-MJW Document 19 Filed 10/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Virgil Willingham, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[745 NYS2d 496]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the unauthorized use of controlled substances after his urine twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. Substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt was presented at his disciplinary hearing in the form of the misbehavior report, the positive urinalysis test results, and the testimony given by the correction officer who conducted the urinalysis tests and authored the misbehavior report *(see, Mat*
      *793
      *ter of Schnittker v Selsky,*288 AD2d 794; *Matter of Mason v Goord,*251 AD2d 829). Petitioner’s unsupported contentions that the urinalysis test results were invalid and that procedural errors denied him a fair hearing have been examined and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



I, James D. Constantine, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial and Administrative Officer of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. (the Company),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended May 1, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and



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



|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: June 7, 2004                                                    
|                                                                       
|/s/ James D. Constantine                                               
|James D. Constantine                                                   
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial and Administrative Officer
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 9Federal Reserve Bank of: MinneapolisFilings received during the week ending April 6, 2019FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBOSSHARD BANCO, LTD.                                                                                                    CICChange in control notice by Joseph W. Bosshard, Boulder, Colorado, Makenzie B. Bosshard, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Carlista M. Bosshard, Auburn, Alabama, and John Bosshard, Chicago, Illinois, for approval to retain shares of Bosshard Banco, Ltd., La Crosse, Wisconsin (Bosshard Banco) and join the Bosshard Family Group that controls Bosshard Banco. In addition, Andrew R. Bosshard, La Crosse, Wisconsin; to acquire additional shares and retain control of Bosshard Banco. Bosshard Banco controls First National Bank of Bangor, Bangor, Wisconsin, and Intercity State Bank, Schofield, Wisconsin.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 04/12/2019FIRST HOLDING COMPANY OF CAVALIER, INC.                                                                                 * 3A3First Holding Company of Cavalier, Inc., Cavalier North Dakota to acquire 100 percent of the shares of Northern Sky Bank, Crookston, Minnesota.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 04/29/2019REPUBLIC BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                               CICChange in Control notice by Paul V. Mellini, Saint Petersburg, Florida, as Personal Representative of the Jeno F. Paulucci Estate, Sanford, Florida, to retain shares of Republic Bancshares, Inc., Duluth, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly retain control of Republic Bank, Inc., Duluth, Minnesota.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not available
February 9, 2015

Via Electronic Filing: Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle Clerk, Third Court of Appeals
P.O. Box 12547 Austin, TX 78711

RE: Cause No. 03

- 14 -00397- CV

Appellant, American Multi-Cinema, Inc. // Cross-Appellants, Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Ken Paxton, Attorney
General of the State of Texas

v. Appellees, Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas // Cross-Appellee, American Multi-Cinema, Inc.

Dear Mr. Kyle:

Appellant/Cross-Appellee, American-Multi Cinema, Inc. received your correspondence advising the parties that submission and oral argument in the abov e referenced appeal has been set for March 11, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. Please be advised that I intend to argue this matter before the Court.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Doug Sigel Counsel for American Multi-Cinema, Inc.

Cc: Charles Eldred (Charles.Eldred@texasattorneygeneral.gov) 100 Congress Avenue, Suite 95 0 | Austin, Texas 78701 | 512.459.6600 Main | 512.459.6601 Fax www.ryanlawllp.com D OUG S IGEL

Partner
Direct Dial: 512. 459.6611
E

- Mail : Doug.Sigel@ryanlawllp.com ACCEPTED
03-14-00397-CV

4069934
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS
2/9/2015 11:21:57 AM
JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE INTERIM
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          10,897
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,026
<ALLOWANCES>                                        77
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,923
<PP&E>                                             895
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (216)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,967
<BONDS>                                         12,032
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,295
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            70
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,810
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,304
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,589
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,467
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    77
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 415
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,630
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,130
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,500)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,500)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.51)
        

</TABLE>
Label	Description
Date						monthly, last business day of month
Variable rate demand obligations (millions)	U.S. tax-exempt money market funds investment holdings of variable rate demand obligations	millions of dollars
Other municipal (millions)	 		U.S. tax-exempt money market funds investment holdings of municipal securities	    millions of dollars
Other assets (millions)	 			U.S. tax-exempt money market funds investment holdings of other assets	    millions of dollars
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 876 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     December 19, 2007.
    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds 
vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is 
presented to the House is waived with respect to any resolution reported on or 
before the legislative day of December 19, 2007, providing for consideration or 
disposition of any of the following measures:
            (1) A bill relating to the Children's Health Insurance Program, or 
        an amendment thereto.
            (2) A bill relating to Medicare, or an amendment thereto.
            (3) A bill relating to the alternative minimum tax, or an amendment 
        thereto.
            (4) A joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for 
        the fiscal year 2008, or an amendment thereto.
            (5) The bill (H.R. 2764) making appropriations for the Department of 
        State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year 
        ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, or an amendment 
        thereto.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

May 2, 2010 

ERRATA 

______________________ 

Appeal No. 2010-5108 

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES, 

v. 

UNITED STATES. 

Decided: April 15, 2011 

Precedential Opinion 

______________________ 

Please make the following change: 

Page 18, line 12, change “highly unlikely” to “highly 

likely”.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 8Federal Reserve Bank of: St. LouisFilings received during the week ending February 15, 2014FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodFIRST BANK                                                                                                              * BranchFirst Bank, Creve Coeur, Missouri, to establish a branch to be located at 1211 East Valley Boulevard, Alhambra, Los Angeles County, California.Newspaper: 02/20/2014Federal Register: Not applicableRODGER O. RINEY FAMILY VOTING TRUST U/A/D 12/31/2012                                                                    * SLHC FormationRoger O. Riney Family Voting Trust U/A/D 12/31/12, Town and Country, Missouri, to become a saving and loan holding company by acquiring control of Scottrade Financial Services, Inc., Town and Country, Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire Scottrade Bank, Town and Country, Missouri, and Boulevard Bank, Neosho, Missouri.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not available
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00019-CV

__________________

MARIA CONCEPCION DELGADO, Appellant

V.

LUIS GOVEA LOPEZ, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CIV33210

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER

Maria Concepcion Delgado, appellant, filed a statement of inability to afford 

payment of costs in the trial court. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. Luis Govea Lopez, 

appellee, objected that Delgado provided no financial information in her statement. 

Delgado appeared at a hearing on June 14, 2021. Delgado stated she did not have 

any “federal reserve notes” and she had “rights of subrogation.” The trial court 

informed Delgado that stating “private” for every entry on the statement of inability 

to afford payment of court costs provided no information on which the trial court 

could find that Delgado could not afford payment of court costs. Delgado replied, 
2

“I’m letting you know there’s a trust involved.” On June 14, 2020, the trial court 

found that Delgado did not offer any financial information to support her statement 

of inability to afford payment of court costs. 

Delgado challenges the trial court’s ruling on the ground that the trial court 

failed to respond to a “form 1020” that Delgado filed with the Polk County District 

Clerk on May 20, 2021. Delgado has not shown that the “form 1020” was filed with 

the proper clerk or provided to the trial court in the hearing, but in any event the 

information on the “form 1020” is no evidence of Delgado’s eligibility for public 

benefits, income, sources of income, property, or monthly expenses.

On this record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by 

finding that appellant failed to carry her burden under Rule 145. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 

145(f). We deny appellant’s motion to challenge and affirm the trial court’s order to 

pay costs. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(g). Appellant shall pay or make satisfactory 

arrangements to pay for preparation of the reporter’s record within 30 days of the 

date of this Order. Her failure to pay or make arrangements to pay that are 

satisfactory with the court reporter will result in the appeal being submitted without 

a reporter’s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c). 

ORDER ENTERED August 23, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
1 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

EDWARD BROWN & ELAINE BROWN, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket no. 1:09-CR-30-GZS 

ORDER ON DENYING DEFENDANT 

ATTORNEY IACOPINO’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW 

This morning, just prior to bringing the jury in to start trial, attorney Michael Iacopino 

made an oral motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendant Edward Brown. Specifically, attorney 

Iacopino asserted that Defendant Edward Brown was displeased with his representation, that 

communications between he and Defendant Edward Brown had broken down and that he felt it 

was his obligation under the rules to withdraw. Thereafter, attorney Iacopino moved to withdraw 

so that another counsel could be appointed or Edward Brown could represent himself. The Court 

also heard from Edward Brown, who stated that attorney Iacopino was unable to “present us in 

the matter in which we need to be presented.”1

 

With respect to the appointment of new counsel, the Court inquired into the reasons for 

the dissatisfaction. Although attorney Iacopino made the conclusory statement that 

communications had broken down, neither he nor Edward Brown presented the Court with any 

specifics regarding the communication breakdown. Edward Brown complained about numerous 

events that he feels have been unfair to him and the preparation of his defense. As all of these 

grievances have already been the subject of pretrial filings in this case, the Court has previously 

considered all of them and finds nothing additional of note or to support a significant breakdown 

1

 The Court did not understand from Edward Brown that he wanted to represent himself. 

Case 1:09-cr-00030-GZS Document 151 Filed 06/30/09 Page 1 of 2
in communications with counsel. Thus, despite the Court’s inquiry, neither attorney Iacopino nor 

Edward Brown have stated any good cause for the substitution of counsel. Moreover, the 

substitution of counsel would certainly cause a delay of trial in this matter where there has been 

extensive discovery and trial preparation. In addition, over 200 individuals were called in as part 

of the panel for jury selection and the better part of a day has already been devoted to jury 

selection. See United States v. Allen, 789 F.2d 90, 92 (1st Cir. 1986). There is no basis in the 

record to support a finding that the conflict between the defendant and his counsel is so great that 

it has resulted in a lack of communication that prevents an adequate defense or that the 

substitution of counsel is warranted. 

 

SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ George Z. Singal 

 United States District Judge 

Dated this 30th day of June, 2009. 

2 

Case 1:09-cr-00030-GZS Document 151 Filed 06/30/09 Page 2 of 2