alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25650]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-152549-03]
RIN 1545-BC69


Section 179 Elections; Hearing Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed 
rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of cancellation of public 
hearing relating to the election to expense the cost of property 
subject to section 179.

DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for November 30, 2004, 
at 10 a.m., is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin R. Jones of the Publications and 
Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division at (202) 622-7180 (not a 
toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice 
of public hearing that appeared in the Federal Register on Wednesday, 
August 4, 2004 (69 FR 47043), announced that a public hearing was 
scheduled for November 30, 2004, at 10 a.m., in the auditorium. The 
subject of the public hearing is proposed regulations under section 179 
of the Internal Revenue Code. The public comment period for these 
regulations expired on November 2, 2004. Outlines of oral testimony was 
due on November 9, 2004.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, 
instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to 
submit an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of Monday, November 
15, 2004, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing 
scheduled for November 30, 2004, is cancelled.

Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing 
Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 04-25650 Filed 11-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
|  |   | FGDC Press ReleasesSeptember 3, 1998 |
|--|--------|--------------------------------------|
#### In the Matter of Ruth G. Schreiber, Petitioner, against J. Raymond McGovern, as Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss proceeding granted, by default. Present — Bergan, J. P., Coon, Halpern, Imrie and Zeller, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7077

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SAMUEL ROBERT QUEEN, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:93-cr00369-AMD-1; 1:06-cv-01250-AMD)

Submitted: October 17, 2006 Decided: October 23, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Robert Queen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein,

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Robert Queen, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on

that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.

2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Queen has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Queen’s notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims
- 3 -

based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000). Queen’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255

motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Global Broadcast Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sam Winer, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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 the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  | 
|----------------------- |  | 
|Date: November 14, 2003 |  | 
|                        |  | 
|                        |  |
### §11103. Applicability to national security systems

(a) Definition.—

(1) National security system.—In this section, the term "national security system" means a telecommunications or information system operated by the Federal Government, the function, operation, or use of which—

(A) involves intelligence activities;

(B) involves cryptologic activities related to national security;

(C) involves command and control of military forces;

(D) involves equipment that is an integral part of a weapon or weapons system; or

(E) subject to paragraph (2), is critical to the direct fulfillment of military or intelligence missions.

(2) Limitation.—Paragraph (1)(E) does not include a system to be used for routine administrative and business applications (including payroll, finance, logistics, and personnel management applications).

(b) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (c), chapter 113 of this title does not apply to national security systems.

(c) Exceptions.—

(1) In general.—Sections 11313, 11315, and 11316 of this title apply to national security systems.

(2) Capital planning and investment control.—The heads of executive agencies shall apply sections 11302 and 11312 of this title to national security systems to the extent practicable.

(3) Applicability of performance-based and results-based management to national security systems.—

(A) In general.—Subject to subparagraph (B), the heads of executive agencies shall apply section 11303 of this title to national security systems to the extent practicable.

(B) Exception.—National security systems are subject to section 11303(b)(5) of this title, except for subparagraph (B)(iv).

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1236.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 11103(a) | 40:1452. | Pub. L. 104–106, div. E, title LI, §§5141, 5142, Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 689. |
| 11103(b) | 40:1451(a). | |
| 11103(c) | 40:1451(b). | |

Section

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

#### Exemption From Requirement for Capital Planning and Investment Control for Information Technology Equipment Included as Integral Part of a Weapon or Weapon System

Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title VIII, §895, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2326, as amended by Pub. L. 117–81, div. A, title XVII, §1702(l)(9), Dec. 27, 2021, 135 Stat. 2161, provided that:

"(a) Waiver Authority.—Notwithstanding subsection (c)(2) of section 11103 of title 40, United States Code, a national security system described in subsection (a)(1)(D) of such section shall not be subject to the requirements of paragraphs (2) through (5) of section 11312(b) of such title unless the milestone decision authority determines in writing that application of such requirements is appropriate and in the best interests of the Department of Defense.

"(b) Milestone Decision Authority Defined.—In this section, the term 'milestone decision authority' has the meaning given the term in section 4251(d)(5) of title 10, United States Code."
B.C.D. 02-27 APR 0 2 2002

EMPLOYER DETERMINATION

Central of Tennessee Railway & Navigation Company, Inc.

d/b/a The Longhorn Railway Company

This is a determination ofthe Railroad Retirement Board concerning the continued 

status of Central of Tennessee Railway & Navigation Company, Inc. d/b/a the

Longhorn Railway Company (CTR) (B.A. No. 5550) as an employer under the

Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231 et seg.) (RRA) and the Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. § 351 et seg.) (RUIA).

Information regarding CTR was provided by Mr. Donald T. Cheatham, owner and

legal counsel for CTR. According to Mr. Cheatham, CTR formerly provided rail 

service in the states of Tennessee and Texas. In Board Coverage Decision (B.C.D.)

01-41 dated May 10, 2001, we noted that CTR formerly operated approximately

162 miles ofrail line that was owned by Capital Metropolitan Transportation

Authority (CMTA)1. Mr. Cheatham stated that because CMTA terminated CTR’s

operating contract, CTR last compensated its employees and ceased its rail

operations in Texas and Tennessee on March 31, 2000 and August 1, 2000

respectively. Mr. Cheatham stated that CTR had no assets other than the

operation’s contracts. Mr. Cheatham further stated that the proceeds from the sale

ofCTR’s Tennessee operation were assigned to the Internal Revenue Service which

applied the proceeds to the taxes due under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.

Section 202.11 (20 CFR 202.11) ofthe Board’s regulations states:

The employer status of any company or person shall terminate

whenever such company or person loses any ofthe characteristics

essential to the existence of an employer status.

The evidence ofrecord establishes that Central of Tennessee Railway & Navigation 

Company, Inc d/b/a The Longhorn Railway Company no longer possesses the

characteristics of an operating railroad. Therefore, effective August 1, 2000, the

last date it compensated its employees and ceased rail operations, Central of

1 B.C.D. 01-41 found that effective December 13, 2000, Austin Area Terminal Railroad, Inc. (AATR,

Inc.) (B.A. No. 3895) began rail operations on that line and became a covered employer under the RRA and the

BA# 5550
Central of Tennessee Railw ay & Navigation Company, Inc.

d/b/a The Longhorn Railway Company

Tennessee Railway & Navigation Company, Inc d/b/a The Longhorn Railway

Company ceased to be an employer under the Railroad Retirement Act and the

Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. V.

CherryFT. Thomas

V. M. Speakman, Jr. '

:x <■ k

Terome F. Kever

-CAJS2-,-
#### James A. Smyth, Respondent, v. Emerol Manufacturing Company, Inc., Appellant.

Order unanimously modified so as to stay all proceedings in the action until Ward and Hull have been added as parties and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant. As the action is in rem this will not require personal service in this State. In the circumstances the relief granted is warranted. Settle order on notice. Concur — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Bastow, Botein and Rabin, JJ.
§ 904.212 Failure to prosecute or defend. ( a ) Whenever the record discloses the failure of any party to file documents, respond to orders or notices from the Judge, or otherwise indicates an intention on the part of any party not to participate further in the administrative proceeding, the Judge may issue: ( 1 ) An order requiring any party to show why the matter that is the subject of the failure to respond should not be disposed of adversely to that party's interest;
( 2 ) An order requiring any party to certify intent to appear at any scheduled hearing; or
( 3 ) Any order, except dismissal, as is necessary for the just and expeditious resolution of the case.
( b ) [Reserved]
Exhibit 8.1

LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF SILICONWARE PRECISION INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.



|                                        |  |                               |  |                                             |     |  
|--------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------- | --- | -
|                                        | 
|Company                                 |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |  | Percentage OwnershipAs of December 31, 2010 |    
|                                        |  |                              
|SPIL (B.V.I.) Holding Limited           |  | British Virgin Islands        |  |                                             | 100 | %
|Siliconware U.S.A. Inc.                 |  | United States of America      |  |                                             | 100 | %
|SPIL (Cayman) Holding Limited           |  | Cayman Islands                |  |                                             | 100 | %
|Siliconware Technology (Suzhou) Limited |  | Peoples Republic of China    |  |                                             | 100 | %
§ 1203.15 Positional stability test (roll-off resistance). ( a ) *Test equipment* — ( 1 ) *Headforms.* The test headforms shall comply with the dimensions of the full chin ISO reference headforms sizes A, E, J, M, and O.
( 2 ) *Test fixture.* The headform shall be secured in a test fixture with the headform's vertical axis pointing downward and 45 degrees to the direction of gravity (see Figure 7 of this part). The test fixture shall permit rotation of the headform about its vertical axis and include means to lock the headform in the face up and face down positions.
( 3 ) *Dynamic impact apparatus.* A dynamic impact apparatus shall be used to apply a shock load to a helmet secured to the test headform. The dynamic impact apparatus shall allow a 4-kg (8.8-lb) drop weight to slide in a guided free fall to impact a rigid stop anvil (see Figure 7 of this part). The entire mass of the dynamic impact assembly, including the drop weight, shall be no more than 5 kg (11 lb).
( 4 ) *Strap or cable.* A hook and flexible strap or cable shall be used to connect the dynamic impact apparatus to the helmet. The strap or cable shall be of a material having an elongation of no more than 5 mm (0.20 in.) per 300 mm (11.8 in.) when loaded with a 22-kg (48.5 lb) weight in a free hanging position.
( b ) *Test procedure.* ( 1 ) Orient the headform so that its face is down, and lock it in that orientation.
( 2 ) Place the helmet on the appropriate size full chin headform in accordance with the HPI and fasten the retention system in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Adjust the straps to remove any slack.
( 3 ) Suspend the dynamic impact system from the helmet by positioning the flexible strap over the helmet along the midsagittal plane and attaching the hook over the edge of the helmet as shown in Figure 7 of this part.
( 4 ) Raise the drop weight to a height of 0.6 m (2 ft) from the stop anvil and release it, so that it impacts the stop anvil.
( 5 ) The test shall be repeated with the headform's face pointing upwards, so that the helmet is pulled from front to rear.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 69369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26283]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 23, 2004.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Sue Costello, Vice President) 
1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
    1. Georgia Trust Bancshares, Inc. Buford, Georgia; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 
Georgia Trust Bank, Buford, Georgia.
    2. The Colonial BancGroup, Inc., Montgomery, Alabama; to acquire 
100 percent of the voting shares of Union Bank of Florida, Lauderhill, 
Florida.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 22, 
2004.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 04-26283 Filed 11-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
No: III-13-044 December 13, 2013

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Begins Special Inspection at Clinton Nuclear Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has started a Special Inspection at the Clinton nuclear 

power plant to review the circumstances surrounding a transformer failure and subsequent plant 

shutdown Sunday night.

The five-member inspection team began work at the plant Thursday to better understand the 

event, the interactions between the affected systems, repair activities, and the extent of the condition.

“We have sent specialists in boiling water reactors and electrical system design to the site in 

order to establish a sequence of events and to review the plant’s response, procedures, and decision 

making process. We want to ensure the plant continues to operate in a manner that preserves safety,” 

said NRC Region III Administrator Cynthia D. Pederson.

NRC inspectors will spend time on-site and off-site evaluating the licensee’s root cause analysis 

and corrective actions.

An inspection report documenting the team’s findings will be made publicly available within 45 

days of the end of the inspection.

The plant is operated by Exelon Generation Co., and is located in Clinton, Ill., about 20 miles 

southeast of Bloomington.
First Department,

November, 1943.

(November 1, 1943.)

#### In the Matter of Thomas A. Aurelio (Also Known as Thomas Anthony Aurelio), an Attorney.

Per *Curiam.*

Motion to confirm, the report of the referee [see *ante,*p. 958] granted and the proceeding dismissed for the reasons stated in the report of the referee.

Present — Townley, Glennon, Dore and Callahan, JJ.

Motion to confirm report of referee granted and the proceeding dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

                            Certification Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                           by Chief Executive Officer

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of VSB Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Merton Corn, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 Company.


Date: May 11, 2004

                                       /s/ MERTON CORN
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Merton Corn, President and CEO

A signed original 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.

                                       27
### §10601. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 10601 was editorially reclassified as section 20101 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### § 1052.2 Notice of opportunity for oral presentation.

The Commission will publish in the Federal Register notice of opportunity for an oral presentation in each instance. The notice shall be sufficiently in advance of the oral presentation to allow interested persons to participate. If the oral presentation involves a proposed rule, the notice of opportunity may be in the notice proposing the rule or in a later, separate Federal Register notice.