alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 205 (Monday, October 25, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 62292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23781]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Blu-Ray Disc Founders

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 20, 2004, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Blu-ray Disc Founders 
(``BDF'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the 
name and principal place of business of the standards development 
organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development 
activities. 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 name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: Blu-ray Disc 
Founders, Tokyo, Japan. The nature and scope of BDF's standards 
development activities are: (1) To establish the Blu-ray Disc Format 
for each application, as well as revisions, improvements and extensions 
of such Blu-ray Disc Format; (2) to organize activities to verify the 
compliance with the Blu-ray Disc Format and enable the broad acceptance 
of the Blu-ray Disc Format; (3) to promote the Blu-ray Disc Format as 
the format for recording, playback, storage and distribution of large 
volume content, including high definition content; and (4) to license 
the Blu-ray Disc Format and the Blu-ray Disc Logo.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-23781 Filed 10-22-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
ates 19°30! 20° 20°30' cal

MONTENEGRO

PF 42°30
42°30!
; SERBIA A
Population
by districts
KOSOVO
Pr 42°
42°
[ #1030" MACEDONIA
41°30'
Adriatic Sea
41°
41°
Prespa
P 40°30"
% 0°30!
Legend
19,174 - 29,660 lo n j an
34,600 - 53,492
Pm 40°
40°

GREECE

2.637 - 11,0531 Sea
WEE 157,938 - 270,524
..

30 15 0 30 Kilometers

Source: Ministry of Local Government, March 2005

ral
a
a

8

‘=}USAID | ALBANIA

‘er
RF racine amcuccane = 2

Produced by GIS Unit, March 2007

19° 19°30" 20°30" 21°
4 1 4 4 4
### §327. Advancements and reimbursements for services

(a) In this section, "service" includes service provided in—

(1) disbursing and receiving amounts.

(2) servicing bonds.

(3) making accounts.

(4) maintaining bank accounts.

(b) When the Secretary of the Treasury provides a service for an agency (except the Department of the Treasury) for which amounts have not been appropriated to the Department, the agency may advance for credit or reimburse the Department the amounts necessary to provide the service. Notwithstanding section 3302 of this title, amounts advanced or reimbursed may be credited to the appropriation of the Department that is current when the service is provided.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 883.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 327(a) | 31:157(c)(2). | Aug. 14, 1950, ch. 705, 64 Stat. 440. |
| 327(b) | 31:157(a)–(c)(1). | |

In the section, the word "amounts" is substituted for "funds" for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code.

In subsection (a), the words "shall not be limited to" are omitted as surplus. The words "disbursing and receiving" are substituted for "collection and disbursement", the word "making" is substituted for "rendition of", and the word "maintaining" is substituted for "keeping", for consistency in the revised title. The word "checking" is omitted as being included in "bank".

In subsection (b), the words "When the Secretary of the Treasury provides a service" are substituted for "When any service authorized by law and directed by the Secretary of the Treasury is performed or to be performed" to eliminate unnecessary words. The words "by the Fiscal Service or the Office of the Treasurer of the United States of the Department of the Treasury" are omitted because of the source provisions restated in section 321 of the revised title. The words "agency (except the Department of the Treasury)" are substituted for 31:157(c)(1) for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the Code. The word "reimburse" is substituted for "pay", and the words "advanced or reimbursed" are substituted for "transferred", for clarity and because of the restatement.
§ 4.9 Formal entry. ( a ) *General.* Section 4.3 provides which vessels are subject to formal entry and where and when entry must be made. The formal entry of an American vessel is governed by section 434, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1434). The term “American vessel” means a vessel of the United States (see § 4.0(b)) as well as, when arriving by sea, a vessel entitled to be documented except for its size (see § 4.0(c)). The formal entry of a foreign vessel arriving within the limits of any CBP port is also governed by section 434, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1434). Alternatively, information necessary for formal entry may be transmitted electronically pursuant to a system authorized by CBP.
( b ) *Procedures for American vessels.* Under certain circumstances, American vessels arriving in ports of the United States directly from other United States ports must make entry. Entry of such vessels is required when they have unentered foreign merchandise aboard. Report of arrival as provided in § 4.2 of this part, together with presenting a completed CBP Form 1300 (Vessel Entrance or Clearance Statement), satisfies all entry requirements for the subject vessels.
( c ) *Delivery of foreign vessel document.* The master of any foreign vessel will exhibit the vessel's document to the port director on or before the entry of the vessel. After the net tonnage has been noted, the document may be delivered to the consul of the nation to which such vessel belongs, in which event the vessel master will certify to the port director the fact of such delivery (see section 434, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1434), as applied through section 438, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1438)). If not delivered to the consul, the document will be deposited in the customhouse. Whether delivered to the foreign consul or deposited at the customhouse, the document will not be delivered to the master of the foreign vessel until clearance is granted under § 4.61. It will not be lawful for any foreign consul to deliver to the master of any foreign vessel the register, or document in lieu thereof, deposited with him in accordance with the provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1434 until such master will produce to him a clearance in due form from the director of the port where such vessel has been entered. Any consul violating the provisions of this section is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000 (section 438, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended; 19 U.S.C. 1438).
( d ) *Failure to make required entry; penalties.* Any master who fails to make entry as required by this section or who presents or transmits electronically any document required by this section that is forged, altered, or false, may be liable for certain civil penalties as provided under 19 U.S.C. 1436, in addition to penalties applicable under other provisions of law. Further, any vessel used in connection with any such violation is subject to seizure and forfeiture.
[T.D. 00-4, 65 FR 2873, Jan. 19, 2000; T.D. 00-22, 65 FR 16515, Mar. 29, 2000; CBP Dec. 10-33, 75 FR 69585, Nov. 15, 2010]
Número Identificador

RES2024________

Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico

TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES

PANEL ESPECIAL

FAUSTINO XAVIER 

BETANCOURT COLÓN

Recurrido

v.

CONDADO BUSINESS 

GROUP CORP.

Peticionarios

KLCE202301291

Certiorari

procedente del 

Tribunal de 

Primera Instancia, 

Sala Superior de 

San Juan

Caso Número:

SJ2023CV07938

Sobre: 

Petición de Orden

Panel integrado por su presidente, el Juez Sánchez Ramos, el Juez 

Marrero Guerrero y la Jueza Prats Palerm.

Prats Palerm, Jueza Ponente. 

RESOLUCIÓN

En San Juan, Puerto Rico, a 23 de enero de 2024.

Comparece ante nos CONDADO BUSINESS GROUP, CORP. 

(en adelante “Condado” o parte peticionaria) y solicita que 

revoquemos una Resolución emitida por el Tribunal de Primera 

Instancia, Sala Superior de San Juan (TPI o foro primario) el 3 de 

noviembre de 2023, notificada el mismo día. Mediante el referido 

dictamen, el TPI declaró No Ha Lugar una Reconsideración para 

levantarle la anotación de rebeldía a Condado.

Luego de examinar los méritos del recurso ante nos, 

entendemos procedente no intervenir con la decisión recurrida. Si 

bien este foro apelativo no está obligado a fundamentar su 

determinación al denegar la expedición de un recurso discrecional,1

lo cierto es que este Tribunal ha tomado conocimiento judicial de 

que el TPI dictó Sentencia de Desistimiento con perjuicio el pasado 

18 de enero de 2024, notificada el mismo día, por lo que el recurso 

ante nuestra consideración se ha convertido en uno Académico, 

haciendo innecesaria nuestra intervención.

1 32 LPRA Ap. V, R. 52.1.
KLCE202301291 2

Basado en lo anterior, denegamos la expedición del auto de 

Certiorari ante nuestra consideración por academicidad.

Notifíquese.

Lo acuerda y manda el Tribunal, y lo certifica la Secretaria del 

Tribunal de Apelaciones.

Lcda. Lilia M. Oquendo Solís

Secretaria del Tribunal de Apelaciones
#### § 360.107 Hours of operation.

The automatic licensing system will generally be accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week but may be unavailable at selected times for server maintenance. If the system is unavailable for an extended period of time, parties will be able to obtain licenses from Commerce directly via fax during regular business hours. Should the system be inaccessible for an extended period of time, Commerce would advise Customs to consider this as part of mitigation on any liquidated damage claims that may be issued.
#### Mildred Parker, Respondent, v. James Y. Parker, Appellant. Mildred Parker, Respondent, v. James Y. Parker, Appellant.

Appeal withdrawn on stipulation of the attorneys for the respective parties. Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Foster, Russell and Deyo, JJ., concur.
#### Joni R. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART *, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-15205.

D.C. No. CV-99-00596-ECR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 **.

Decided May 28, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, WARDLAW, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 Jo Anne B. Barnhart is substituted for her predecessor as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Joni Martinez appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of disability benefits and sup*674plemental security income. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits, and review for substantial evidence and legal error the Commissioner’s decision. *Sandgathe v. Chafer,*108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam). We affirm.

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) gave specific and legitimate reasons for not according controlling weight to treating physician Spogen’s opinion, including that the opinion lacked objective medical findings and conflicted with other physicians’ opinions. *See id.*

The ALJ fulfilled his duty to develop the record by keeping the record open for thirty days and the Appeals Council considered the letter submitted over nine months later in support of Dr. Spogen’s opinion. *See Duenas v. Shalala,*34 F.3d 719, 722 (9th Cir.1994).

The ALJ properly provided specific reasons for discrediting Martinez’s subjective pain testimony, by pointing to the medical evidence and inconsistencies between the medical evidence and Martinez’s statements. *See Orteza v. Shalala,*50 F.3d 748, 750 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam).

Contrary to Martinez’s contention, the magistrate judge’s additional rationale for discrediting Dr. Spogen’s opinion did not impermissibly expand the ALJ’s three findings that reached the same result. *Blacknall v. Heckler,*721 F.2d 1179, 1181 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
MP IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 2 1

- 0510

CODY WAYNE JOHNSTON

,

Petitioner and Appellant

,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA

,

Respondent and Appellee

.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30

- day extension of time, and

good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is gran ted a n extension of time to and

including June 1 6 , 2022

, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 10 2022

05/10/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0510
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 30, 2011

h0927 

# Order

September 30, 2011

143709

SC: 143709 IN Re S. GOANS, MINOR. COA: 301934 Oakland CC Family Division: 08-752245-NA

___________________ _________________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 23, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
§ 1601.12 Investing future deposits in the TSP core funds. ( a ) *Allocation.* Future deposits in the TSP, including contributions, loan payments, and rollovers from traditional IRAs and eligible employer plans, will be allocated among the TSP core funds based on the most recent investment election on file for the participant.
( b ) *TSP core funds availability.* All participants may elect to invest all or any portion of their deposits in any of the TSP core funds.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 145

To designate the Federal building located at 290 Broadway in New York, 

New York, as the ‘‘Ted Weiss Federal Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2003

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To designate the Federal building located at 290 Broadway 

in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Ted Weiss Federal 

Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The Federal building located at 290 Broadway in 

5 New York, New York, shall be known and designated as 

6 the ‘‘Ted Weiss Federal Building’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 
2

•HR 145 IH 

1 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

2 a reference to the ‘‘Ted Weiss Federal Building’’.

Æ
#### § 1210.10 Representatives.

Motions challenging the designation of a representative must be filed within 3 days of the submission of the designation of representative notice.
****EXHIBIT 31.2****

**Rule 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Arthur W. Budich, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Warwick Community Bancorp, Inc. (the "Registrant");

2.     Based on my knowledge, this 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 consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects theconsolidated 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 officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures ( as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the Registrant and we have:

> 
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation 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 beingprepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure 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 changes 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 the Company's annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theRegistrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

> 
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely toadversely 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.

Date: March 15, 2004

----
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-96-62 October 11, 1996

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $160,000 FINE AGAINST CENTERIOR SERVICE CORP.

FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION VIOLATIONS AT PERRY NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a

$160,000 fine against Centerior Service Company, operator of the

Perry Nuclear Power Station, for discriminating against six workers

who were seeking employment at the nuclear plant

The six, who were employed as insulators, filed a complaint

with the U. S. Department of Labor, claiming that they were denied

access to the Perry plant because they were involved in litigation

against Centerior regarding an exposure to a small amount of

radioactive material while working at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power

Station. Perry is located at Perry, Ohio, and Davis-Besse is at

Oak Harbor.

Because the six were denied access to the Perry facility, five

were not hired by Fischbach Power Services, Inc., a contractor at

Perry, and the sixth, already employed, was terminated.

A Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge, following a

hearing, issued a Recommended Decision and Order finding that the

actions of Centerior were in deliberate retaliation for the filing

of the civil litigation by the six workers. The decision was

appealed by the utility and is pending before the Department of

Labor Administrative Review Board.

NRC regulations prohibit an NRC licensee from discriminating

against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities,

including raising safety issues. Based on a review of the

Department of Labor decision, the NRC staff has determined that the

action of the utility constituted discrimination.

"Such violations are very significant because they could have

a chilling effect on other licensee or contractor personnel and

deter them from identifying and/or raising safety concerns," said

NRC Regional Administrator A. Bill Beach in notifying the utility

of the proposed fine.

The utility has until November 10 to respond to the Notice of

Violation, providing information on its corrective actions. Since

the Department of Labor case is still pending before the

Administrative Review Board, the utility may delay its full

response to the Notice of Violation, including payment of the
proposed fine, until after the Department of Labor decision is

issued. The utility may protest the fine, and, if it is

subsequently imposed by the NRC staff, the utility may request a

hearing.

#####
§ 206.18 Time for determinations, reporting. ( a ) *In general.* The Commission will make its determination with respect to injury within 120 days after the date on which the petition is filed, the request or resolution is received, or the motion is adopted, as the case may be, except that— ( 1 ) If the Commission determines before the 100th day that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, the Commission will make its determination within 150 days; or
( 2 ) If critical circumstances are alleged, the Commission will make its determination within 120 days after completion of its investigation with respect to critical circumstances. The Commission will make its report to the President at the earliest practicable time, but not later than 180 days (240 days if critical circumstances are alleged) after the date on which the petition is filed, the request or resolution is received, or the motion is adopted, as the case may be.
( b ) *Perishable agricultural product.* In the case of a request in a petition for provisional relief with respect to a perishable agricultural product that has been the subject of monitoring by the Commission, the Commission will report its determination and any finding to the President not later than 21 days after the date on which the request for provisional relief is received.
( c ) *Critical circumstances.* If petitioner alleges the existence of critical circumstances in the petition, the Commission will report its determination regarding such allegation and any finding on or before the 60th day after such filing date.