alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31887]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Parts 208 and 225

[Regulations H and Y; Docket No. R-1055]


Risk-Based Capital Guidelines; Capital Adequacy Guidelines; 
Capital Maintenance; Capital Treatment of Recourse, Direct Credit 
Substitutes and Residual Interests in Asset Securitizations

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

ACTION: Final rule; correction

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects the Federal Reserve's regulatory text 
of a final rule published in the Federal Register of November 29, 2001 
(66 FR 59614), regarding the capital treatment of recourse, direct 
credit substitutes, and residual interests in asset securitizations. 
This correction rectifies errors made in Attachment II in Appendix A, 
part 208 and Appendix A, part 225.

DATES: This correction is effective January 1, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Boemio, 202-452-2982 or Arleen 
Lustig, 202-452-2987.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction:

    In the final rule FR Doc. No. 01-29179, beginning on 66 FR 59614 in 
the issue of November 29, 2001, make the following corrections.

PART 208--[CORRECTED]

    1. In Appendix A to Part 208, Attachment II, on page 59643:
    A. In the column for Components, in the fourth entry under 
Supplementary Capital, replace the word ``stocks'' with the word 
``stock.''
    B. In the column for Minimum requirements, the fourth entry is 
revised to read, ``Banks should avoid using minority interests to 
introduce elements not otherwise qualifying for tier 1 capital.''
    C. In the column for Minimum requirements, remove the eleventh 
entry beginning with ``As a general rule * * *'' in its entirety.
    D. Remove footnote 3 following the table.

PART 225--[CORRECTED]

    2. In Appendix A to Part 225, Attachment II, on page 59651:
    A. In the column for Minimum requirements, the second entry is 
revised to read ``Organizations should avoid using minority interests 
to introduce elements not otherwise qualifying for tier 1 capital.''
    B. In the column for Minimum requirements, in the eleventh entry of 
the table, replace the word ``banks'' with ``organizations.''

    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System, December 20, 2001.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-31887 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 31887-22-S
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1808

TANGELA ANITA HARRIS, a/k/a Tanger Anita Harris, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

v. 

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (8:11-cv-01303-HMH) 

Submitted: October 13, 2011 Decided: October 17, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Tangela Anita Harris, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Tangela Anita Harris appeals the district court’s 

order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

summarily dismissing her civil action as barred by the statute 

of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its 

order dismissing Harris’ action without prejudice. Harris v. 

Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., No. 8:11-cv-01303-HMH (D.S.C. June 

27, 2011).* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED

 * Although a dismissal without prejudice is ordinarily not a 

final, appealable order, Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers 

Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993), the 

applicable three-year statute of limitations period has passed. 

S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-530(5), (8) (2005). Thus, the district 

court’s order is effectively a final order.
#### Craig L. SCOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles WILLIAMS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-7447.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

*149Craig Lamont Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Craig L. Scott, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, and a subsequent order construing his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as an unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. We conclude that the district court properly denied relief on Scott’s § 2241 petition and dismissed his Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court and grant Scott’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. *See Scott v. Williams,*No. 3:14-cv-00133-GMG-JES (N.D.W. Va. June 17, 2015; Sept. 3, 2015); *United States v. McRae,*793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir.2015) (holding that a certificate of appealability is unnecessary where a district court dismisses a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive habeas motion).

Additionally, we construe Scott’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:

> (1) newly discovered evidence that ... would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or

> (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Scott’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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.*
108 A.3d 1

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. L.J.A., DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

February 3, 2015.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted limited to the issue of the imposition of an extended sentence. The Superior Court, Appellate Division’s judgment is summarily reversed on that issue, and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Division for reconsideration in light of this Court’s opinion in *State v. Perez,*220 *N.J.*423, 106 A.3d 1212 (2015). Jurisdiction is not retained.
#### Willard G. TRIBBY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 13577.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 18, 1957.

Decided May 2, 1957.

Petition for Rehearing Denied May 17, 1957.

Mr. Bernard I. Nordlinger, Washington, D. C. (appointed by the Court), for appellant.

Mr. Alfred Burka, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. *773Atty., and Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and BAZELON and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of grand larceny. D.C.Code (Supp. V) § 22-2201. We find no error affecting substantial Tights.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**
**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 WorldQuest Networks, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, B. Michael Adler, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.    By:           /s/ B. Michael Adler     Name: B. Michael Adler  Title: President and Chief Executive Officer 
November 12, 2004
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3539 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

223 West Chalan Santo Papa in Hagatna, Guam, as the ‘‘Atanasio 

Taitano Perez Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 25, 2021 

Mr. SAN NICOLAS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 223 West Chalan Santo Papa in Hagatna, 

Guam, as the ‘‘Atanasio Taitano Perez Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ATANASIO TAITANO PEREZ POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 223 West Chalan Santo Papa 

6 in Hagatna, Guam, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Atanasio Taitano Perez Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3539 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Atanasio Taitano 

3 Perez Post Office’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

On December 29, 2000 (65 FR 82984), the Department of Defense published an announcement of a closed Threat Reduction Advisory Committee meeting to be held on February 15, 2001. The meeting is hereby postponed until a later date. A new notice announcing will be published in the future.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Major Don Culp 703-767-5717.

Dated: February 1, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01-3140  Filed 2-06-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3412 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act to provide relief to nonbanks from certain stress test requirements 

under such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2021 

Mr. LOUDERMILK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on 

Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to provide relief to nonbanks from 

certain stress test requirements under such Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Alleviating Stress Test 

5 Burdens To Help Investors Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3412 IH

1 SEC. 2. STRESS TEST RELIEF FOR NONBANKS. 

2 Section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Re3 form and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 5365(i)(2)) 

4 is amended— 

5 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘are regu6 lated by a primary Federal financial regulatory 

7 agency’’ and inserting: ‘‘whose primary financial reg8 ulatory agency is a Federal banking agency or the 

9 Federal Housing Finance Agency’’; 

10 (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘Each 

11 Federal primary financial regulatory agency’’ and 

12 inserting ‘‘Each Federal banking agency and the 

13 Federal Housing Finance Agency’’; and 

14 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(D) SEC AND CFTC.—The Securities and 

16 Exchange Commission and the Commodity Fu17 tures Trading Commission may each issue regu18 lations requiring financial companies with re19 spect to which they are the primary financial 

20 regulatory agency to conduct periodic analyses 

21 of the financial condition, including available li22 quidity, of such companies under adverse eco23 nomic conditions.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Jackson, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Jackson,*118 Ohio St.3d 194, 2008-Ohio-2204.]

(No. 2007-0854

Submitted May 6, 2008

Decided May 14, 2008.)

Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sheryl L. Prichard, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Yeura R. Venters, Franklin County Public Defender, and Allen V. Adair, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Simpkins,*117 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-1197, 884 N.E.2d 568.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur.

Lanzinger, J., dissents.
109 A.3d 217

#### IN THE MATTER OF V. JAMES CASTIGLIA, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 022541977).

March 2, 2015.

ORDER

This matter have been duly presented to the Court pursuant to *Rule*1:20—10(b), following a granting of a motion for discipline by consent in DRB 14-357 of V. JAMES CASTIGLIA of OAK RIDGE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1977;

And the District XB Ethics Committee and respondent having signed a stipulation of discipline by consent in which it was agreed that respondent violated *RPC*1.2(a) (failure to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the scope and objectives of the representation);

And the parties having agreed that respondent’s conduct violated *RPC*1.2(a), and that said conduct warrants a reprimand or lesser discipline;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined that a reprimand is the appropriate discipline for respondent’s unethical conduct and having granted the motion for discipline by consent in District Docket No. XB-2013-0020E;

*583And the Disciplinary Review Board having submitted the record of the proceedings to the Clerk of the Supreme Court for the entry of an order of discipline in accordance with *Rule*1:20—16(e);

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that V. JAMES CASTIGLIA of OAK RIDGE is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
**BB** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0563 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. KASEY NICHOL HUGS,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including August 2 9 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court July 24 2023

07/24/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0563
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  The Mine Act & Procedural Rules 
-                   The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977              

#   The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977

This document was prepared by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, and reflects changes to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 [30 U.S.C. 801 et seq.] by the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 ("MINER Act") [Pub. L. 109-236]. This is not an official document. Do not use this document as a legal citation to authority.

Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), as amended by Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (MINER Act)

##           Downloads        

response_0.pdf

response_0.htm

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                            0
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                             2,234,741
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                              15,914,584
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         21,736,770
<PP&E>                                   43,840,650
<DEPRECIATION>                         (11,152,589)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           68,090,332
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    29,511,295
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                218,702,545
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                        0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             68,090,332
<SALES>                                   2,580,693
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          2,580,693
<CGS>                                     4,645,975
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             8,059,221
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          (789,470)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          797,822
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (5,486,880)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (5,486,880)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                            (5,486,880)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.05)


</TABLE>
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*June 30,2014*

[Cite as *06/30/2014 Case Announcements #2,*2014-Ohio-2917.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2014-0853.

#### Broadview Hts. v. Misencik.

Cuyahoga App. No. 100196, 2014-Ohio-1518. Upon consideration of appellant’s expedited motion for *1435stay, it is ordered by the court that the motion is denied.

Upon consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this case, the court declines to accept jurisdiction of the appeal pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08(B)(4).