alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 19.44 Carrier responsibility. ( a ) If merchandise is transferred directly to a container station from an importing carrier, the importing carrier shall remain liable under the terms of its bond for the proper safekeeping and delivery of the merchandise until it is formally receipted for by the container station operator.
( b ) If merchandise is transferred directly from a bonded carrier's facility to a container station or is delivered directly to the container station by a bonded carrier, the bonded carrier shall remain liable under the terms of his bond for the proper safekeeping and delivery of the merchandise until it is formally receipted for by the container station operator.
( c ) In either case under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, the importing carrier and the bonded carrier, as applicable, shall be responsible for assuring that the provisions of subpart A, part 158 of this chapter, relating to quantity determinations, and discrepancy reporting and accountability are followed.
( d ) The importing carrier and the bonded carrier, as applicable, shall indicate concurrence in the transfer of the merchandise either by signing the application for transfer or by physically turning the merchandise over to the operator.
( e ) The importing carrier and the bonded carrier, as applicable, shall be responsible for ascertaining that the person to whom a container is delivered for transfer to the container station is an authorized representative of the operator.
( f ) The importing carrier and the bonded carrier, as applicable, shall furnish an abstract manifest showing the bill of lading number, the marks and numbers of the container, and the usual manifest description for each shipment in the container.
( g ) If a container station operator chooses to collect merchandise from within the boundaries of the district (see definition of “district” at § 112.1) in which the container station is located and transport the merchandise to his container station, the container station operator must formally receipt for the merchandise at the time of collection, and he becomes liable under his bond for proper safekeeping of the merchandise at that time.
[T.D. 82-135, 47 FR 32416, July 27, 1982, as amended by T.D. 94-81, 59 FR 51494, Oct. 12, 1994; T.D. 95-77, 60 FR 50010, Sept. 27, 1995]
###### Editorial Note on Part 173

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 173 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93024, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 173.5 Review of entry covering household or personal effects.

An error in the liquidation of an entry covering household or personal effects may be corrected by the port director even though a timely protest was not filed if entry was made before December 18, 2004 and an application for refund is filed with the port director within 1 year after the date of the entry and no waiver of compliance with applicable regulations is involved other than a waiver which the port director has authority to grant. Where the port director has no authority to grant the waiver, the application will be referred to the Commissioner of CBP.

[T.D. 70-181, 35 FR 13429, Aug. 22, 1970, as amended by CBP Dec. 11-02, 76 FR 2577, Jan. 14, 2011]
June 10, 2015

Mr. Jean-Mario Moril

6955 Golfcrest Drive San Diego, CA 92119

Dear Mr. Moril:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 11, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 1562), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 1, 2014

p0924 

# Order

Clerk October 1, 2014

148274 & (34)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148274

COA: 313548

Chippewa CC: 10

- 000378

- FC

DARRIN SCOTT LAPINE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the “motion for immediate consideration to obtain/transfer

the Court of Appeals file and video to the Supreme Court for full review” is DENIED as

moot because the Court has already received those items. The application for leave to

appeal the October 23, 2013 order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT

the Chippewa County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal

within 28 days after the date of this order. The prosecutor shall address the defend ant’s

assertion that the state courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction in this case because he is

Indian and the sentencing offenses occurred within the jurisdiction of the federal

government or the Bay Mills Indian Community.

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
From: Guy Donaldson

To: pettyjohn@adeq.state.ar.us
Cc: Michael Feldman ; Erik Snyder; Dayana Medina ; Joe Kordzi Subject: Whitebluff Baseline Emission Rates.

Date: 09/10/2012 07:15 AM

In follow up to our call Thursday, as requested, I am sending this E-mail summarizing EPA's position regarding the baseline emissions for the Entergy Whitebluff facility.

The BART Guidelines state that "The baseline emissions rate should represent a realistic depiction of anticipated annual emissions for the source."

With respect to NOx emissions, the boiler tuning and addition of a neural network will impact the anticipated annual emissions of the two units. The emissions from the baseline period of 2001-2003 are no longer representative of anticipated NOx emissions and therefore a more recent baseline period can be utilized that captures the emission reductions due to these changes to the boilers. One of the five factors considered in the BART analysis is consideration of any existing control technology used at the source. In evaluating NOx controls for these two units, it is appropriate to consider and account for NOx emission reductions that resulted from improving the boiler efficiency.

In contrast, the SO2 emission rates have shown significant variability and there is not sufficient information or an enforceable limit to suggest that the baseline period of 2001-2003 is no longer representative of anticipated maximum future emissions. We understand that modeling utilizing the baseline period has already been completed and that the facility does not believe that the change in baseline period will impact the outcome of the BART determination. The analysis already completed may be sufficient to support the BART determination. However, we note that a sensitivity study and/or revised modeling may be needed should the anticipated increase in visibility benefit due to a change in baseline be significant enough to impact the ultimate BART determination. We suggest that the cost-effectiveness in terms of $/ ton removed be calculated based on both the 2001-2003 baseline and the facility's proposed 2009-2011 baseline as this calculation is straightforward and will directly demonstrate how the cost-effectivness can will be impacted by the proposed revision in baseline emissions.

We also note that should the facility commit to a BART determination that consists of the most stringent controls available, then there is no need to complete the remaining BART analysis

I hope you find this helpful, Please feel free to forward as necessary.
#### § 158.25 Partial destruction or injury.

In the case of partial destruction or injury, no application shall be entertained unless the port director shall have had an opportunity to examine the merchandise or the remainder thereof for the purpose of fixing the percentage of injury or destruction. Whether the duty involved is ad valorem, specific, or compound, the percentage of injury for the purpose of the allowance shall be determined by comparing the market value of comparable sound merchandise with the net salvage value of the injured merchandise computed on the basis of the market value of comparable injured merchandise, such comparison to be made as of the time and place of examination.
Page 1 of 3 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-22995-CIV-WILLIAMS

SILVA HARAPETI,

Plaintiff,

v. 

CBS TELEVISION STATIONS INC., et al., 

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on U.S. Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis’s 

Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) (DE 162) that the Court deny pro se Plaintiff Silva 

Harapeti’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (“the Motion”). (DE 

158.) In the Report, Judge Louis states that Plaintiff’s Motion has “fail[ed] to ‘state[] the issues 

that [Plaintiff] intends to present on appeal.’” (DE 162 at 2 (quoting Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C)).) 

Judge Louis also notes that Plaintiff has also failed to “identify the issues she intends to raise on 

appeal in her Pro Se Notice of Appeal . . . . [and therefore,] the Motion is deficient for failure to 

comply with Federal rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1).” (DE 162 at 2.) No objections to the 

Report have been filed. Upon an independent review of the Report, the underlying record, and 

applicable case law, the Court agrees with Judge Louis’s findings and conclusions.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The conclusions in the Report (DE 162) are AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (DE 158) is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

3. This case remains closed.

Case 1:20-cv-22995-KMW Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida on this 15th day of November, 

2022.

Case 1:20-cv-22995-KMW Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3 

Copies furnished to:

Silva Harapeti, Pro Se

P.O. Box 3145

Burbank, CA 91508

Case 1:20-cv-22995-KMW Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 3 of 3
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the filing of the Annual Report onForm 20-F for the fiscal year ended November 26, 2005 (the“Report”) by Novamerican Steel Inc. (the “Company”), the undersigned, as theChief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to my knowledge:

·       the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

·       the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

|        | /s/ *D. Bryan Jones*            |
|--------|---------------------------------|
|   | Name: D.  Bryan Jones           |
|   | Title: Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 

----
MEMORANDUM

Subject: Summary of Stakeholder Meeting

From: Martha Keating

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699

Date: August 6, 2015

On July 24, 2015, representatives of EPA attended a meeting with Earthjustice. The meeting was 

held by videoconference. Attendees discussed the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

rulemaking. Earthjustice provided materials and they are attached. 

The following is a list of attendees and their affiliation: 

Name Affiliation

Leslie Fields Sierra Club

Stephanie Maddin Earthjustice

Hilary Shelton NAACP

Dr. Yolanda White National Medical Association

Janet McCabe EPA/Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)

Deborah Jordan EPA/OAR

Mike Koerber EPA/Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS)

Erika Sasser EPA/OAQPS

Karen Wesson EPA/OAQPS


Copyrighted page(s) removed. Copyrighted 

material is not available in Regulations.gov since 

it may not be reproduced without consent of the 

copyright holder. 

Removed pages can be viewed at the USEPA 

Docket Center, Public Reading Room. 

Address: 1301 Constitution Ave, NW 

Room 3334 

Washington, DC 20004 

Telephone: 202-566-1744 

Email: docket-customerservice@epa.gov
###### Editorial Note on Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93021, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 151.3 Disclosure of examination packages.

Information as to the particular packages which will be examined shall not be made available to the importer, his agent, or any person other than Customs officers necessarily concerned, until the merchandise has arrived within the limits of the port of entry.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 13a-15 OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of U.S. Can Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions);
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which
are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Philip R. MengelPhilip R. MengelChief Executive Officer
Exhibit32.2

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

            In connection with the Quarterly Report of GlobalIndustries, Ltd. ("Global") on Form10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2006as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on May 10,2006 (the "Report"), theundersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1350 asadopted pursuant to §§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledgebased upon a review of the Report, that:

(1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2)         The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Global as of thedates and for periods presented as required by such Report.

 

| /S/ PETER S. ATKINSON   |
|-------------------------|
| Peter S. Atkinson       |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| May 10,  2006           |

 
This certification is provided pursuant to §§ 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Global or the certifying officerfor purposes of §§ 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by§§ 906 has been provided to Global and will be retained by it and furnished tothe SEC or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 8.1
 LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES
 1.
    
    Lorenzo Jewelry Limited, a Hong Kong corporation2.
    
    Lorenzo Jewellery (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., a PRC corporation3.
    
    ENZO International Holdings Ltd., a BVI corporation4.
    
    ENZO Jewelry Inc., a BVI corporation5.
    
    Lorenzo Crystal Ltd., a Hong Kong corporation6.
    
    Lorenzo (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., a PRC corporation7.
    
    Wonderful (Shenzhen) Ltd., a PRC corporation8.
    
    Beijing Rainbow Zhen Ai Ltd., a PRC corporation9.
    
    Goldleaves Gems (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., a PRC corporation
461 P.2d 229

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack PAVLICH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 8821.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Nov. 10, 1969.

Jack Pavlich, pro se.

James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., James V. Noble, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee.

*748OPINION

COMPTON, Justice.

In 1962, appellant was convicted by a jury of Colfax County of the crime of armed robbery and was sentenced therefor. Later, while serving the sentence, he was returned from prison, tried and convicted by a jury of Colfax County under the provisions of § 40A—29-7, N.M.S.A.1953, as being an habitual offender, but no sentence was interposed at the time. Subsequently, his application for post conviction relief under Rule 93, § 21-1-1(93), N.M.S.A.1953 (1967 Supp.) being denied, he appealed. Pavlich v. State, 79 N.M. 473, 444 P.2d 984. Upon appeal, the judgment was affirmed except as to the sentence interposed. We remanded the case with directions to the trial court to re-sentence the appellant in accordance with the mandate of § 40A-29-7, supra. The court conducted a hearing on the validity of prior felony convictions and appellant being dissatisfied with the sentence then interposed, again appeals.

Appellant contends that he was denied due process of law because his Colorado counsel failed to render him effective legal assistance in defense of the charge against him in Colorado in advising him to enter a plea of guilty. While the effective assistance of counsel is always a matter of concern in criminal cases, State v. Dalrymple, 75 N.M. 514, 407 P.2d 356, the trial court found against appellant on his claim of inadequacy of counsel. The finding has substantial support in the evidence. The record discloses that his Colorado counsel conducted appellant’s defense in a skillful manner. The information upon which he was charged contained four counts. When the case was set for trial, the district attorney announced that he was dismissing one count of the information and would go to trial on the remaining three counts. At that posture of the proceeding, the appellant, on the advice of his counsel, pleaded guilty to one count of the remaining counts. The plea was accepted, and the remaining two counts were dismissed. It appears from an exhibit offered by appellant concerning the activities of his Colorado counsel that Colorado counsel was diligent and active in appellant’s behalf. He attended various pretrial conferences with the defendant, leading up to the trial setting, at which time the appellant pleaded guilty.

The bare fact that counsel advised -appellant to plead guilty to one count rather than to risk the consequences of conviction of other charges does not indicate ineffectual representation by counsel. The plea by the appellant may well have been most beneficial to him. Compare State v. Walburt, 78 N.M. 605, 435 P.2d 435; State v. Apodaca, 78 N.M. 412, 432 P.2d 256.

The judgment imposing sentence under § 40A-29-7, supra, should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

WATSON, J., and DEE C. BLYTHE, D. J., concur.