alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13365-13366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5289]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and

[[Page 13366]]

recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Submit comments on or before April 4, 2001. If you intend to 
comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB 
Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.

COPIES: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency 
Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 
3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance 
Officer, (202) 205-7044.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Financial Institution Confirmation Form.
    No: 860.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Description of Respondents: SBIC Investment Companies.
    Annual Responses: 1,500.
    Annual Burden: 750.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. 01-5289 Filed 3-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2993 

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to include 

energy storage as renewable energy under the Rural Energy for America 

Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 5, 2018 

Mr. BENNET (for himself and Mr. MERKLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 

of 2002 to include energy storage as renewable energy 

under the Rural Energy for America Program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF ENERGY STORAGE AS RENEW4 ABLE ENERGY UNDER RURAL ENERGY FOR 

5 AMERICA PROGRAM. 

6 Section 9007 of the Farm Security and Rural Invest7 ment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8107) is amended— 

8 (1) by redesignating subsections (a) through (g) 

9 as subsections (b) through (h), respectively; 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2993 IS

1 (2) by inserting before subsection (b) (as so re2 designated) the following: 

3 ‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

4 ‘‘(1) RENEWABLE ENERGY.—The term ‘renew5 able energy’ includes energy storage, including elec6 trochemical, thermal, and mechanical storage, for 

7 example, provided by battery storage, a grid-enabled 

8 water heater, or pumped hydroelectric storage. 

9 ‘‘(2) RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEM.—The term 

10 ‘renewable energy system’ includes an energy stor11 age component.’’; 

12 (3) in subsection (f) (as so redesignated), by 

13 striking ‘‘(g)’’ each place it appears and inserting 

14 ‘‘(h)’’; and 

15 (4) in paragraph (2) of subsection (h) (as so re16 designated)— 

17 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘(b)’’ 

18 and inserting ‘‘(c)’’; and 

19 (B) in subparagraph (B)— 

20 (i) by striking ‘‘(b)’’ and inserting 

21 ‘‘(c)’’; and 

22 (ii) by striking ‘‘(c)’’ and inserting 

23 ‘‘(d)’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from JWH Global
Trust for the second quarter of 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001027099
<NAME> JWH GLOBAL TRUST
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      81,058,413
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  826,155
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            81,884,568
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              81,884,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,463,292
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  80,421,276
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                81,884,568
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 (402)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,076,641
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,077,043)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,077,043)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,077,043)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.98)
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ___________ 

No. 24-10248 

 ___________ 

Chamber of Commerce for the United States of 

America, Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce; Longview 

Chamber of Commerce; American Bankers Association; 

Consumer Bankers Association; Texas Association of 

Business,

Plaintiffs—Appellants, 

versus

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Rohit Chopra, 

in his official capacity as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,

Defendants—Appellees. 

 ______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:24-CV-213 

 ______________________________ 

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

IT IS ORDERED that appellants’ motion for stay of the District 

Court’s transfer order pending appeal is administratively stayed until 10:00 

a.m. on March 30, 2024. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

March 29, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gabriel Olufemi OBIDI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50625.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 7, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 22, 2007.

Becky S. Walker, Esq., Rosalind Wang, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal *556Division, Los Angeles, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.

W. Anthony Willoughby, Esq., Culver City, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gabriel Olufemi Obidi appeals the 36-month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to two counts of bank fraud and one count of possession of fifteen or more unauthorized access devices. The facts and procedural history are known to the parties and we do not repeat them here.

I

A district court may rely upon a presentence report (“PSR”) at sentencing to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the relevant facts of loss have been established. *See United States v. Romero-Rendon,*220 F.3d 1159, 1161-62 (9th Cir.2000) (citing *United States v. MarinCuevas,*147 F.3d 889, 895 (9th Cir.1998)). Here, the PSR properly documented losses stemming from Obidi’s fraudulent activities to be in excess of $120,000.1 Further, Obidi cannot simply object to the district court’s reliance upon the PSR, but bears some burden to challenge the accuracy of the facts contained therein and to present contradictory evidence. *United States v. Charlesworth,*217 F.3d 1155, 1160-61 (9th Cir.2000). He failed to do so, offering only the conclusory statement that “he didn’t do it.” There was no error in the district court’s calculation of the applicable sentencing range as 21-27 months.

II

“[A]ny *post-Booker*decision to sentence outside the applicable guidelines range is subject to a unitary review for reasonableness, no matter how the district court styles its sentencing decision.” *United States v. Mohamed,*459 F.3d 979, 987 (9th Cir.2006). Here, as we require, the district court considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It concluded that the length and breadth of the scheme, the central involvement of Obidi, the need to account for the non-monetary losses suffered by the victims of defendant’s identity theft, and deterrence all counseled in favor of a longer sentence. Given the thoroughness of the district court’s treatment of the factors, we have no trouble concluding that the district court was within its considerable *post-Booker*discretion in crafting its 36-month sentence. *See Mohamed,*459 F.3d at 989.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Although Obidi was not required to pay restitution in this amount, primarily because Washington Mutual seized other assets to cover its loss and American Express wrote off its loss, we have made clear that loss for restitution purposes and loss for sentencing calculations are not co-extensive. *See United States v. Catherine,*55 F.3d 1462, 1464-65 (9th Cir.1995).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ronnie R. PEA, also known as Lil Sam, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30494

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 7, 2011.

James G. Cowles, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Christopher Albert Aberle, Mandeville, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

*787Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ronnie R. Pea appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. He argues that the district court erred when it failed to adequately inform him of the mandatory minimum sentence as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1)®. Where, as here, a defendant fails to object to a Rule 11 error in the district court, this court reviews for plain error. *United States v. Vonn, 535*U.S. 55, 59, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002).

The PSR correctly advised Pea of the sentence that he faced and his discussions with counsel at the plea hearing, as well as his objections to the PSR, indicated his knowledge that his sentences for the two counts to which he pleaded guilty were to be served consecutively. Additionally, Pea’s awareness that he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years of imprisonment was evident in a letter that he submitted to the district court prior to sentencing. The fact that Pea did not attempt to withdraw his guilty plea despite this knowledge suggests that the court’s failure to clearly inform him of the mandatory minimum sentence was not a significant factor in his decision to plead guilty. *See United States v. Johnson,*1 F.3d 296, 302 (5th Cir.1993) (en banc). Considering the record as a whole, *Vonn,*535 U.S. at 68, 122 S.Ct. 1043, we find that Pea has not established plain error. *See United States v. Dominguez Benitez,*542 U.S. 74, 76, 124 S.Ct. 2333, 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004); *United States v. Davis,*602 F.3d 643, 650-52 (5th Cir.2010).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
**EXHIBIT 23.3**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in RegistrationStatement No. 333-158097 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement No. 333-144315 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 11, 2009 related to the consolidated financial statements of Market Hub Partners Holding as of December 31, 2008and 2007 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2008, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Spectra Energy Partners, LP for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Houston, Texas 

May 14, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 46 (Thursday, March 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5707]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Biztech for Energy (``BizTech'')

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 22, 2000, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), BizTech for Energy 
(``BizTech'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the 
identities of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the 
venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the 
Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) 
of the Act, the identities of the parties are Crawley Petroleum 
Corporation, Oklahoma City, OK; Schlumberger Geoquest, Austin, TX; Oil 
India Limited, Duliajan, Assam, INDIA; Phillips Petroleum Co., 
Bellaire, TX; Quillion Inc., Houston, TX; Tobin International Ltd., 
Houston, TX; enertia-software.com, Midland, TX; NetworkOil, Inc., 
Houston, TX; Landmark Graphics Corporation, Houston, TX; Microsoft, 
Houston, TX; PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, Houston, TX; Oracle 
Corporation, Houston, TX; Chevron Information Technology Co., Houston, 
TX; SAP America, Inc., Houston, TX; Environmental Systems Research 
Institute, Redlands, CA: TietoEnator, Sandnes, NORWAY; Merrick Systems, 
Inc., Houston, TX; INT, Houston, TX; POSC, Houston, TX; Novistar, Inc., 
Englewood, CO; and Seismic Micro-Technology, Houston, TX. The nature 
and objectives of the venture are to develop and publish standards to 
facilitate communication and operations within a corporation engaged in 
the energy business and standards to facilitate communications among 
such corporations and their external vendors. The development of such 
standards will increase the efficiency of corporations in the energy 
business. In addition, it will allow corporations to have access to and 
utilize publicly available data in developing strategic plans and other 
goals for future research and operations.

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 01-5707 Filed 3-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
EX-35.1
ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION


Re: GE Commercial Mortgage Corporation
    Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
    Series 2007-C1


In connection with the above-referenced transaction the undersigned officer, on
behalf of Bank of America, National Association, hereby certifies that (i) a
review of the Servicing activities, for the period ending December 31, 2007 and
of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1,
2007 has been made under my supervision, and (ii) to the best of my knowledge,
based on such review, Bank of America, National Association has fulfilled all
of its obligations under this agreement in all material respects throughout the
aforementioned period.

Bank of America, National Association


/s/ Janice M. Smith
Janice M. Smith
Managing Director


/s/ H. Michael Lumadue
H. Michael Lumadue
Vice President
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the *

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 7, 2006

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ROY J. WHITEHEAD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 06-2165

v. (D.C. No. CIV-06-144 JB/RLP)

UNKNOWN AGENCY AND/OR

AGENTS, 

(D. New Mex.)

Defendant-Appellee.

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant applied for and received permission to proceed in forma pauperis

in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. He asserts that he “has been tortured by voices

since a[] 1996 evident[i]ary hearing in Naples, Florida” and that these voices
-2-

might cause him to suffer another stroke or other serious bodily injury. Because

Appellant does not know who or what is causing him to hear voices, he has

brought an action against unknown defendants. He previously filed a complaint

alleging similar injuries. See Whitehead v. Collier County Sheriff’s Office,

Memorandum Opinion and Order (D.N.M. May 12, 2005). That complaint was

dismissed with prejudice. See Whitehead v. Collier County Sheriff’s Office, 143

Fed. Appx. 997 (10th Cir. 2005). In this case, Appellant requests that the court

(1) make the voices and torture stop, (2) overturn his convictions, and (3)

reimburse him for lost business.

The district court dismissed Appellant’s complaint sua sponte under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Memorandum Opinon and Order, 6 (D.N.M. May 15, 2006). 

According to § 1915, a court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint “at any

time if . . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim on

which relief may be granted.” The district court held that Appellant had failed to

make a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. at 3.

For substantially similar reasons to those outlined by the district court in its

May 15, 2006, order, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Appellant’s

complaint.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 46 (Thursday, March 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5637]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-20-001]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

March 2, 2001.
    Take notice that on November 17, 2000, Tennessee Gas Pipeline 
Company (Tennessee) tendered for filing a Supplemental Response to the 
Protest filed by National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation on October 
13, 2000, in this proceeding.
    Tennessee states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
the Commission's order issued November 1, 2000, in the above docket 
that directed Tennessee to respond to the protest filed by National 
Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before March 9, 2001. 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 proceedings. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rms.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the 
internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-5637 Filed 3-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                          OF CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER

            PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The  undersigned,  Robert A. Bourne,  the  President and Treasurer of CNL Realty
Corporation,  the  corporate  general  partner of CNL Income Fund XVI, Ltd. (the
"Partnership"),  has executed this  certification  in connection with the filing
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission of the Partnership's  Annual Report
on Form  10-K for the  period  ending  December  31,  2002 (the  "Report").  The
undersigned hereby certifies that:

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

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

Date:    March 24, 2003                 /s/ Robert A. Bourne
      --------------------              -----------------------------------
                                        Name:  Robert A. Bourne
                                        Title:     President and Treasurer
ANNUAL
SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT


PURSUANT
TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB


March 7,
2008
 RE: BSABS
2007-HE4
 For the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period"), Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC ("OLS") furnishes this annual servicer compliance statement
pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB, indicating its compliance with the
servicing standards of the Securities & Exchange Commission as set forth in
Regulation AB, 17 CFR §229.1100, et seq., ("Regulation AB"). In this regard, I
make the following representations, which are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief in all material respects.
 1.
                A
      review of the servicing activities of OLS during the Reporting Period, and
      of its performance
      under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2007 &
      SubServicing
      Agreement (the "Agreement"), has been performed under my
      supervision.
 
 2.
                To
      the best of my knowledge, based on this review, OLS has fulfilled all of
      itsobligations
      under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting
      Period.
 By: /s/ Ronald M. FarisName: Ronald
      M. FarisTitle:
      President
 Ocwen Loan
Servicing LLC
 1661
Worthington Road Suite 100
 Centrepark
West
 West Palm
Beach, FL 33409