alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §77cc. Directors of Corporation; appointment, term of office, and removal

The control and management of the Corporation shall be vested in a board of six directors, who shall be appointed and hold office in the following manner: As soon as practicable after the date this chapter takes effect the Federal Trade Commission (hereinafter in this subchapter called "Commission") shall appoint six directors, and shall designate a chairman and a vice chairman from among their number. After the directors designated as chairman and vice chairman cease to be directors, their successors as chairman and vice chairman shall be elected by the board of directors itself. Of the directors first appointed, two shall continue in office for a term of two years, two for a term of four years, and two for a term of six years, from the date this chapter takes effect, the term of each to be designated by the Commission at the time of appointment. Their successors shall be appointed by the Commission, each for a term of six years from the date of the expiration of the term for which his predecessor was appointed, except that any person appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for the unexpired term of such predecessor. No person shall be eligible to serve as a director who within the five years preceding has had any interest, direct or indirect, in any corporation, company, partnership, bank, or association which has sold or offered for sale any foreign securities. The office of a director shall be vacated if the board of directors shall, at a meeting specially convened for that purpose, by resolution passed by a majority of at least two-thirds of the board of directors, remove such member from office, provided that the member whom it is proposed to remove shall have seven days' notice sent to him of such meeting, and that he may be heard.

(May 27, 1933, ch. 38, title II, §202, 48 Stat. 93.)
#### § 375.201 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to set forth the Commission procedures for conduct of its official business in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552b. The Commission may waive the provisions set forth in this subpart to the extent authorized by law.
# C_2014282EN.01000201.xml

| 25.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 June 2014 — Deltafina SpA v European Commission

(Case C-578/11 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Immunity from fines Immunity from fines - Obligation to cooperate - Rights of the defence - Limits of judicial review - Right to fair legal process - Hearing of witnesses or of parties - Reasonable time - Principle of equal treatment))

2014/C 282/02

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Deltafina SpA (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and G. Coppo, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Deltafina SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Deltafina SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 0
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 0 appear at 73 FR 73 FR 54947, Sept. 24, 2008.

§ 0.179a Enforcement responsibilities. ( a ) Matters involving charges of obstruction of justice, perjury, fraud or false statement, as described in § 0.179, shall be under the supervisory jurisdiction of the Division having responsibility for the case or matter in which the alleged obstruction occurred. The Assistant Attorney General in charge of each Division shall have full authority to conduct prosecution of such charges, including authority to appoint special attorneys to present evidence to grand juries. However, such enforcement shall be preceded by consultation with the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division, to determine the appropriate supervisory jurisdiction. (See 38 CFR 0.55(p).)
( b ) In the event the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Division having responsibility for the case or matter does not wish to assume supervisory jurisdiction he shall refer the matter to the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division for handling by that Division.
[Order No. 630-75, 40 FR 53390, Nov. 18, 1975]
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Post-Effective Amendment Number 1 to the Registration Statement Number 33-02074 on
Form S-8, dated February 3, 1995, in Registration Statement Number 33-02075 on Form S-8, dated December 11, 1985, in Registration
Statement Number 33-42477 on Form S-3, dated August 28, 1991, in Registration Statement Number 33-57589 on Form S-8, dated
February 3, 1995, in Registration Statement Number 33-00543 on Form S-8, dated January 30, 1996, in Registration Statement Number 333-49127 on
Form S-8 dated April 1, 1998, in Registration Statement Number 333-61609 on Form S-8, dated August 17, 1998, in Registration Statement
Number 333-78515 on Form S-3, dated May 14, 1999, in Registration Statement Number 333-100787 on Form S-8, dated October 28,
2002, in Registration Statement Number 333-101719 on Form S-8 dated December 6, 2002, in Registration Statement Number 333-103715 on
Form S-8, dated March 10, 2003, in Registration Statement Number 333-105132 on Form S-3, dated May 9, 2003, and in Registration
Statement Number 333-111346, dated December 19, 2003 and of our report dated January 23, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Great
Lakes Chemical Corporation included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.



Indianapolis,
Indiana
March 8, 2004

---

QuickLinks
### §6312. Professional boxing matches conducted on Indian reservations

#### (a) Definitions

For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

#### (1) Indian tribe

The term "Indian tribe" has the same meaning as in section 5304(e) of title 25.

#### (2) Reservation

The term "reservation" means the geographically defined area over which a tribal organization exercises governmental jurisdiction.

#### (3) Tribal organization

The term "tribal organization" has the same meaning as in section 5304(l) of title 25.

#### (b) Requirements

#### (1) In general

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a tribal organization of an Indian tribe may, upon the initiative of the tribal organization—

(A) regulate professional boxing matches held within the reservation under the jurisdiction of that tribal organization; and

(B) carry out that regulation or enter into a contract with a boxing commission to carry out that regulation.

#### (2) Standards and licensing

If a tribal organization regulates professional boxing matches pursuant to paragraph (1), the tribal organization shall, by tribal ordinance or resolution, establish and provide for the implementation of health and safety standards, licensing requirements, and other requirements relating to the conduct of professional boxing matches that are at least as restrictive as—

(A) the otherwise applicable standards and requirements of a State in which the reservation is located; or

(B) the most recently published version of the recommended regulatory guidelines certified and published by the Association of Boxing Commissions.

(Pub. L. 104–272, §21, formerly §13, Oct. 9, 1996, 110 Stat. 3313; renumbered §21, Pub. L. 106–210, §4(1), May 26, 2000, 114 Stat. 322.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1997, see section 23 of Pub. L. 104–272, set out as a note under section 6301 of this title.
NUMBER 13-20-00501-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

STEVEN WAYNE LANDRUM, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 36th District Court

of Aransas County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellate counsel’s Anders1 brief and motion to 

withdraw as counsel. Pursuant to Kelly v. State, appellate counsel has informed the Court 

that she notified appellant of her filing of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw. See 

1See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
2

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). In addition, appellate counsel 

stated that she sent a copy of the record directly to appellant. See id. at 320 n.22 

(recognizing that appellate counsel sometimes sua sponte send the record to the 

appellant). The record in this case includes two volumes of the reporter’s record, the 

clerk’s record, the first supplemental clerk’s record, Exhibit V3, and State’s exhibit A, 

which is a video.

In Kelly, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that appellate counsel must

“assist the appellant in filing a motion in the court of appeals for access to the appellate 

record if that is indeed what the appellant wants,” and that “[o]nce such a motion is filed, 

the court of appeals has the ultimate responsibility to make sure that, one way or 

another . . . the appellant is granted access to the appellate record so that he may file his 

response. . . .” Id. at 315. The Kelly court noted that sometimes however “when the 

appellate record is not voluminous, appellate counsel will sua sponte send a copy of the 

appellate record to the appellant along with the Anders brief and motion to withdraw.” In 

that case, the Kelly court stated that “the court of appeals could then simply issue an 

order requiring the appellant to file his response to the Anders brief by a date certain.” Id. 

at 320 n.22.

Here, appellate counsel has sua sponte provided the record to appellant along with 

the Anders brief and motion to withdraw. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that 

appellant shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this order to file his pro se response 

to the Anders brief with this Court if he so chooses. See Id. The State shall have twenty 
3

days thereafter to file its response, if any.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

21st day of May, 2021.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  SBA Leadership 
-  Deborah Chen 

#   Deborah Chen

Deputy Chief Financial Officer

Office of Performance, Planning and the Chief Financial Officer

Deborah Chen serves as the Deputy Chief Financial Officer (Deputy CFO) within the Office of Performance, Planning, and the Chief Financial Officer, reporting to the Chief Financial Officer and Associate Administrator for Performance Management (CFO). The Deputy CFO serves as a policy advisor to the CFO and Administrator on matters relating to financial management, budget, financial statement audit and remediation, acquisitions, program evaluation, and DATA Act for financial systems and credit reform. This position, in conjunction with the CFO, provides leadership and direction in the development and execution of the financial management program of the Agency in accordance with federal mandates.

Prior to this appointment, Deborah served as the Budget Director at SBA, overseeing strategic resource management on behalf of the Agency. She directed the financial planning and controls of over $4 billion in administrative appropriations and reimbursable resources, over $80 billion in grant funding, and over $875 billion in credit subsidies, equating to nearly $1.3 trillion in guaranteed and direct loan authority for the SBA’s pandemic response. 

Before joining the SBA, Deborah served as the Budget Division Director for Data Analysis at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, where she was responsible for managing over $20 billion in diverse budgetary resources and led a financial statement audit remediation plan that improved CFO cross-functional understanding and processes to resolve audit findings.

Deborah holds her Master’s in Public Administration from the University of Georgia and a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from the University of Michigan.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Administrative Proceedings Rulings

Release No. 6817 / February 25, 2021

Administrative Proceeding

File No. 3-19303

In the Matter of

Quicksilver Stock Transfer, LLC,

a/k/a Quicksilver Stock 

Transfer Corporation

Order Following

Prehearing Conference

I held a telephonic prehearing conference on February 24, 2021, attended 

by counsel for the Division of Enforcement. The Division will file a motion to 

dismiss this proceeding with the Commission by March 26, 2021.

_______________________________

James E. Grimes

Administrative Law Judge

Served by email on the Division of Enforcement.
TECH

ENTREPRENEURS 

 ofCOLOR Taking the Pulse of Capital Raising

APRIL 27, 2021 • 4 – 5:30 p.m. ET

JOIN THE U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

FOR A 2-PART VIRTUAL CONVERSATION

CONVERSATION 1

4 – 4:30 

MODERATED BY 

Erin Schneider 

Director 

San Francisco 

Regional Office

Surveying the 2021 Regulatory Fundraising Landscape 

How have the capital raising rules changed?

SPEAKERS

• Martha Legg Miller, Director, Office of the Advocate for Small Business 

Capital Formation

• Sebastian Gomez Abero, Deputy Director, Office of the Advocate for 

Small Business Capital Formation

• Jennifer Zepralka, Chief, Office of Small Business Policy, Division of 

Corporation Finance

CONVERSATION 2

4:30 – 5:30 

MODERATED BY 

Richard Best 

Director

New York

Regional Office

Tech Founders and Funders on Challenges, Successes 

and the Road Ahead

A dynamic panel of tech founders and funders based in New York and California 

will share their experiences, insights and successes in launching and growing new 

businesses. The panel will discuss the challenges facing entrepreneurs of color in 

raising capital for their businesses and ways to increase access to capital for these 

business owners.

SPEAKERS

Ramona Ortega

Founder

My Money My Future

Brittany Davis

General Partner

Backstage Capital

Brian Dixon

Partner

Kapor Capital

Kameale Terry

Co-Founder and CEO

ChargerHelp!

EVENT IS FREE. Eventbrite Link

Audience engagement and questions welcomed during the event, or email your 

questions in advance to: secnyoutreach@sec.gov

HOSTED BY THE SAN FRANCISCO AND NEW YORK REGIONAL OFFICES
HomeLatest FilingsPrevious Page

    - SEC Home  »
    - Search the Next-Generation EDGAR System  »
    - Company Search  »
    - Current Page

1601 UTICA AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000MINNEAPOLIS MN 55416         

1601 UTICA AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000MINNEAPOLIS MN 55416         952-444-4898

AB CarVal Opportunistic Credit Fund CIK#: 0001963682 (see all company filings)
State location: MN | State of Inc.: **DE** | Fiscal Year End: 1231File Number: **812-15468**

||
||
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  SBA Leadership 
-  Christina Hale 

#   Christina Hale

Assistant Administrator

Office of Women's Business Ownership

            Download high-resolution image          

Christina Hale serves as Assistant Administrator for the Office of Women's Business Ownership.

Prior to this role, she served as the Associate Administrator for the Office of Communications and Public Liaison (OCPL), where she provided executive leadership and direction to OCPL operations and nationwide programs. She has more than 20 years of executive experience working with business leaders in government and civil society. Before joining the SBA, she served as Head of Communications at the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, where she oversaw the Agency’s strategic communications, including planning, development, and implementation. In 2012, she was elected to serve in the Indiana General Assembly, where she worked with a focus on supporting the success of employers, the workforce, and the economy. She has led teams, projects, and offices throughout the United States and several countries in Europe and Asia-Pacific.

Ms. Hale was a Rotary International Ambassadorial Scholar and graduated from Purdue University.
Exhibit 32

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


         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Harvest  Valley  Ventures,
Inc., on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, B. Stephen Bailey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

         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 result of  operations of the
Company.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### §3196. Administrative sites and visitor facilities

#### (a) Establishment

In conformity with the conservation and management plans prepared for each unit and the purposes of assuring the preservation, protection, and proper management of any conservation system unit, the Secretary may establish sites and visitor facilities—

(1) within the unit, if compatible with the purposes for which the unit is established, expanded, or designated by this Act, and the other provisions of this Act, or

(2) outside the boundaries of, and in the vicinity of, the unit.

To the extent practicable and desirable, the Secretary shall attempt to locate such sites and facilities on Native lands in the vicinity of the unit.

#### (b) Authorities of Secretary

For the purpose of establishing administrative sites and visitor facilities under subsection (a)—

(1) the Secretary and the head of the Federal agency having primary authority over the administration of any Federal land which the Secretary determines is suitable for use in carrying out such purpose may enter into agreements permitting the Secretary to use such land for such purposes;

(2) notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary, under such terms and conditions as he determines are reasonable, may lease or acquire by purchase, donation, exchange, or any other method (except condemnation) real property (other than Federal land), office space, housing, and other necessary facilities which the Secretary determines to be suitable for carrying out such purposes; and

(3) the Secretary may construct, operate, and maintain such permanent and temporary buildings and facilities as he deems appropriate on land which is within, or in the vicinity of, any conservation system unit and with respect to which the Secretary has acquired authority under this subsection to use the property for the purpose of establishing an administrative site or visitor facility under subsection (a), except that the Secretary may not begin construction of buildings and facilities on land not owned by the United States until the owner of such land has entered into an agreement with the Secretary, the terms of which assure the continued use of such buildings and facilities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act.

(Pub. L. 96–487, title XIII, §1306, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2479.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in subsecs. (a)(1) and (b)(3), is Pub. L. 96–487, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2371, known as the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3101 of this title and Tables.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HERIBERTO MEJIA

- ALDARCO,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 71411

Agency No. A087

- 456

- 986

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Homeland Security

Submitted May 15, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

The motion to substitute counsel (Docket Entry No. 23) is granted. The

motion to permit supplemental briefing (Docket Entry No. 2 8 ) is denied.

Heriberto Mejia

- Aldarco, a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions for

review of an order by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) reinstating a

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously conclud es this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 18 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 71411

2008 expedited removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Our review of DHS’ reinstatement order is “limited to confirming the agency’s

compliance with the reinstatement regulations.” Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of

Homeland Sec. , 539 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss

in part the petition for review.

DHS did not err in issuing Mejia

- Aldarco’s reinstatement order, where he

concedes

, and the record shows

, that he is an alien, he was subject to a prior order

of removal, and he illegally reentered the United States subsequent to that order.

See id. at 1137 (court’s jurisdiction over a reinstatement order is limited to

reviewing “ three discrete inquiries an i mmigration officer must make in order to

reinstate a removal order: (1) whether the petitioner is an alien; (2) whether the

petitioner was subject to a prior removal order, and (3) whether the petitioner re

entered illegally ” (citation omitted) ).

We lack j urisdiction to review Mejia

- Aldarco’s collateral challenge to his

underlying expedited removal order. See id. at 1138 (“ w hatever relief might be

gained by the operat ion of [8 U.S.C.] § 1252(a)(2)(D) and the ‘gross miscarriage’

standard, it is unavailable t o [petitioner] because [his] underlying removal order is

an expedited removal order that is subject to additional jurisdictional bars ”

(emphasis in original) ).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
### §77y. Jurisdiction of other Government agencies over securities

Nothing in this subchapter shall relieve any person from submitting to the respective supervisory units of the Government of the United States information, reports, or other documents that may be required by any provision of law.

(May 27, 1933, ch. 38, title I, §25, 48 Stat. 87.)