alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28136]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 2004N-0166]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Infant Feeding Practices Study II

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Infant Feeding Practices Study 
II'' has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Robbins, Office of Management 
Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of October 1, 2004 
(69 FR 58915), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0558. 
The approval expires on December 31, 2007. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

    Dated: December 17, 2004.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-28136 Filed 12-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
EXHIBIT
99.5





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT ENGINEERS





We hereby
consent to the use of and reference to our name and our reports, and the
inclusion of information derived from our reports, evaluating Vermilion Energy
Trust's petroleum and natural gas reserves as at December 31, 2008, in this
Annual Report on Form 40-F of Vermilion Energy Trust.





Yours very
truly,





(“GLJ
Petroleum Consultants Ltd.”)





GLJ
Petroleum Consultants Ltd.


4100, 400
- 3rd Avenue S.W.,


Calgary,
Alberta, Canada T2P 4H2


(403)
266-9500    Fax (403) 262-1855





March 16,
2009
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 250 (Thursday, December 30, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78522-78523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28219]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Renegotiation Board Interest Rate; Prompt Payment Interest Rate; 
Contract Disputes Act

AGENCY: Bureau of the Public Debt, Fiscal Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: For the period beginning January 1, 2005 and ending on June 
30, 2005, the prompt payment interest rate is 4.250 per centum per 
annum.

ADDRESSES: Comments or inquiries may be mailed to Trina Cook, Team 
Leader, Borrowings Accounting Team, Division of Accounting Operations, 
Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the Public Debt, 
Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-1328. A copy of this Notice will be 
available to download from http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov.

DATES: This notice announces the applicable interest rate for the 
January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2005 period.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Brown, Director, Division of 
Accounting Operations, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the 
Public Debt, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-1328, (304) 480-5181; 
Trina Cook, Team Leader, Borrowings Accounting Team, Division of 
Accounting Operations, Office of Public Debt Accounting, Bureau of the 
Public Debt, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-1328, (304) 480-5166; 
Edward C. Gronseth, Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
Bureau of the Public Debt, (304) 480-8692; or Latisha R. Brown, 
Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Chief Counsel, Bureau of the Public 
Debt, (202) 504-3710.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Although the Renegotiation Board is no 
longer in existence, other Federal Agencies are required to use 
interest rates computed under the criteria established by the 
Renegotiation Act of 1971 Sec. 2, Pub. L. 92-41, 85 Stat. 97. For 
example, the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 Sec. 12, Pub. L. 95-563, 92 
Stat. 2389 and, indirectly, the Prompt Payment Act of 1982, 31 U.S.C. 
3902(a), provide for the calculation of interest due on claims at a 
rate established by the Secretary of the

[[Page 78523]]

Treasury for the Renegotiation Board under Pub. L. 92-41.
    Therefore, notice is given that the Secretary of the Treasury has 
determined that the rate of interest applicable, for the period 
beginning January 1, 2005 and ending on June 30, 2005, is 4.250 per 
centum per annum. This rate is determined pursuant to the above-
mentioned sections for the purpose of said sections.

    Dated: December 20, 2004.
Donald V. Hammond,
Fiscal Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-28219 Filed 12-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-39-M
§ 1003.703 Other remedies for noncompliance. ( a ) *Secretarial actions.* If the Secretary finds a grantee has failed to comply with any provision of this part even after corrective actions authorized under § 1003.701 have been applied, the following actions may be taken provided that reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing is made to the grantee. (The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 *et seq.*), where applicable, shall be a guide in any situation involving adjudications where the Secretary desires to take actions requiring reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing): ( 1 ) Terminate the grant to the grantee;
( 2 ) Reduce the grant to the grantee by an amount equal to the amount which was not expended in accordance with this part; or
( 3 ) Limit the availability of funds to projects or activities not affected by such failure to comply; provided, however, that the Secretary may on due notice revoke the grantee's line of credit in whole or in part at any time if the Secretary determines that such action is necessary to preclude the further expenditure of funds for activities affected by such failure to comply.
( b ) *Secretarial referral to the Attorney General.* If there is reason to believe that a grantee has failed to comply substantially with any provision of the Act, the Secretary may refer the matter to the Attorney General of the United States with a recommendation that an appropriate civil action be instituted. Upon such a referral, the Attorney General may bring a civil action in any United States district court having venue thereof for such relief as may be appropriate, including an action to recover the amount of the assistance furnished under this part which was not expended in accordance with this part or for mandatory or injunctive relief.
§ 238.4 Guarantee eligibility. ( a ) Eligible Notes only are guaranteed hereunder. Notes, in order to achieve Eligible Note status: ( 1 ) Must be signed on behalf of the Borrower, manually or in facsimile, by a duly authorized representative of the Borrower;
( 2 ) Must contain a certificate of authentication manually executed by a Fiscal Agent whose appointment by the Borrower is consented to by USAID in the Fiscal Agency Agreement; and
( 3 ) Shall be approved and authenticated by USAID by either: ( i ) The affixing by USAID on the Notes of a guarantee legend incorporating these Standard Terms and Conditions signed on behalf of USAID by either a manual signature or a facsimile signature of an authorized representative of USAID or
( ii ) The delivery by USAID to the Fiscal Agent of a guarantee certificate incorporating these Standard Terms and Conditions signed on behalf of USAID by either a manual signature or a facsimile signature of an authorized representative of USAID.
( b ) The authorized USAID representatives for purposes of the regulations in this part whose signature(s) shall be binding on USAID shall include the USAID Chief and Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Assistant Administrator and Deputy, Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment, Director and Deputy Director, Office of Development Credit, and such other individual(s) designated in a certificate executed by an authorized USAID Representative and delivered to the Fiscal Agent. The certificate of authentication of the Fiscal Agent issued pursuant to the Fiscal Agency Agreement shall, when manually executed by the Fiscal Agent, be conclusive evidence binding on USAID that an Eligible Note has been duly executed on behalf of the Borrower and delivered.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ernest Dixon, Appellant.

Motion for leave to prosecute appeal as a poor person granted, provided an appeal has been timely taken. The appeal may be perfected upon one typewritten copy of the record and five typewritten copies of the brief. Jeremiah W. Davern, Esq., Attorney at Law, Plattsburgh, New York is assigned as counsel for appellant. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
§ 35.46 Compromise or settlement. ( a ) Parties may make offers of compromise or settlement at any time.
( b ) The reviewing official has the exclusive authority to compromise or settle a case under this part at any time after the date on which the reviewing official is permitted to issue a complaint and before the date on which the ALJ issues an initial decision.
( c ) The authority head has exclusive authority to compromise or settle a case under this part at any time after the date on which the ALJ issues an initial decision, except during the pendency of any review under § 35.42 or during the pendency of any action to collect penalties and assessments under § 35.43.
( d ) The Attorney General has exclusive authority to compromise or settle a case under this part during the pendency of any review under § 35.42 or of any action to recover penalties and assessments under 31 U.S.C. 3806.
( e ) The investigating official may recommend settlement terms to the reviewing official, the authority head, or the Attorney General, as appropriate. The reviewing official may recommend settlement terms to the authority head, or the Attorney General, as appropriate.
( f ) Any compromise or settlement must be in writing.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, RFP SBIR Topic 208—Targetry Systems for Production of Research Radionuclides.                    

*Date:*                         February 7, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6130 Executive Blvd., Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Kenneth L. Bielat, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 7147, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-7576,                         *bielatk@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

Dated: December 20, 2004.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04-28308 Filed12-27-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


         In  connection  with the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report  of  Internet
Infinity,  Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended  September
30, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Roger Casas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify that to my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  November 21, 2005

                                                          /s/ Roger Casas
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Roger Casas
                                                         Chief Executive Officer


         The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350)  and is not being filed as
part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
#### In the Matter of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Respondent, v Glen J. Torcivia, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 75]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeals are from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered February 2, 2000, which *322granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration, and (2) an order of the same court, dated May 3, 2000, which denied reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated May 3, 2000, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that order entered February 2, 2000, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the petitioner is awarded one bill of costs.

The appellant, Glen J. Torcivia, was involved in a motor vehicle accident in New York when the vehicle he was driving was struck in the rear by another vehicle, which then left the scene. Torcivia was insured by the petitioner under a policy issued in South Carolina, and his vehicle had South Carolina plates. Torcivia served the petitioner with a demand for arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim. The petitioner commenced this proceeding to permanently stay arbitration on the ground that the policy did not contain a provision for the arbitration of uninsured motorist claims.

The Supreme Court properly granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration. A party will not be compelled to arbitrate, and thus surrender the right to litigate a dispute in court, absent evidence which, affirmatively establishes that the parties expressly agreed to arbitrate their disputes *(see, Matter of Waldron [Goddess],*61 NY2d 181; *Schubtex, Inc. v Allen Snyder, Inc.,*49 NY2d 1). In addition, an agreement to arbitrate must be “express, direct, and unequivocal as to the issues or disputes to be submitted to arbitration” *(Gangel v De-Groot,*41 NY2d 840, 841). Since Torcivia concedes that the policy at issue did not provide for the arbitration of uninsured motorist claims, the petitioner cannot be compelled to arbitrate.

Contrary to Torcivia’s contention, there is no requirement under the New York no-fault statutes and regulations that mandates arbitration where, as here, a policy issued out of State meets the minimum financial security requirements of Insurance Law § 5107 *(cf., Matter of Midwest Mut. Ins. Co. v Pisani,*250 AD2d 512; *Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Ramos],*234 AD2d 41). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
#### ALBERTO ORTEGA *v.*KAREN BHOLA

(AC 25337)

Dranginis, Bishop and McLachlan, Js.

Submitted on briefs January 12

officially released April 12, 2005

*Alberto Ortega,*pro se, the appellant (plaintiff), filed a brief.

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

The pro se plaintiff, Alberto Ortega, appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his application for visitation with his child, who is in the *458custody of her mother, the nonappearing defendant, Karen Bhola.1 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court abused its discretion in concluding that visitation was not in the best interest of the child. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiff currently is incarcerated and has been sentenced to remain incarcerated until 2011. He has been in prison for most of the child’s life, since she was two years old. As of the time of the hearing on his application on January 28, 2004, the plaintiff had not seen the then nine year old child in three years and had been incarcerated for fourteen months. Before the plaintiffs mother died, she occasionally took the child to visit the plaintiff in prison, but the defendant refused to continue that practice. The defendant opposed having the child visit the plaintiff in prison, but did not oppose the plaintiffs continuing to write to the child. The court denied the plaintiffs application, citing the amount of time the plaintiff had been out of the child’s life. The plaintiff claims the court abused its discretion.

The guiding principle in determining whether visitation is proper is the best interest of the child. “In making or modifying any order with respect to custody or visitation, the court shall ... be guided by the best interests of the child .... The best interests of the child include the child’s interests in sustained growth, development, well-being, and continuity and stability of its environment. . . . The trial court is vested with broad discretion in determining what is in the child’s best interests.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) *Schult*v. *Schult,*241 Conn. 767, 777, 699 A.2d 134 (1997).

In light of the record and the facts recited, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that it was not *459in the child’s best interest to grant the plaintiff s application for visitation. The court reasonably concluded that the plaintiff has been out of the child’s life for such a significant amount of time that visitation with him, which would have to take place in prison, would not benefit the child.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

 The defendant was present at the hearing on the plaintiffs application, but did not enter an appearance and has not participated in this appeal.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN BROSNAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 08-4049 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

JOHN BOUZANE’S MOTION TO SET

ASIDE DEFAULT AND DISMISSING

CLAIMS AGAINST BOUZANE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT

PAUL WINDERS; DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT

DENNIS REIFERT

On February 26, 2010, the Court held a hearing on defendant John Bouzane’s motion to set aside

the default and on plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against defendants Bouzane, Winders and

Reifert. Counsel for defendant Bouzane appeared. Plaintiff did not appear, nor did he notify the Court

of any reason for his absence.

On November 21, 2008, the Clerk entered default against these three defendants. Relevant to

the present motions, defendants Bouzane and Reifert were named as defendants in various state law

claims; all of the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice in an order filed February 2, 2009.

The Court GRANTS defendant Bouzane’s motion to set aside the default and reaffirms the dismissal

without prejudice of the claims against him. As the claims against Bouzane have been dismissed, the

litigation with respect to Bouzane is over. With regard to Reifert, although default has been entered,

judgment is not appropriate because the claims against Reifert were also dismissed. 

Defendant Winders was named as a defendant in the only remaining federal claim, alleging

illegal wiretapping under 18 U.S.C. § 2511. Default was entered against Winders, and plaintiff seeks

Case 3:08-cv-04049-SI Document 78 Filed 02/26/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

judgment against him on that basis. The Court will enter judgment. However, the undisputed evidence

in the record – Winders’ deposition testimony – shows that the recorded phone calls between plaintiff

and Winders were not intended for any criminal, tortious or injurious purpose, but rather were made to

preserve testimony and evidence. See Docket No. 69 at 5:11-7:23. Thus, the record strongly suggests

that Winders did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 2511. There is no evidence that plaintiff suffered any actual

damages as a result of Winders’ actions, and the Court exercises its discretion and does not award any

statutory damages. See Reynolds v. Spears, 93 F.3d 428, 434 (8th Cir. 1996). Judgment will therefore

be for zero dollars.

With the resolution of the pending motions, this case has come to an end. The Clerk shall close

the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04049-SI Document 78 Filed 02/26/10 Page 2 of 2
### §6953. Development of markets for recovered materials

The Secretary of Commerce shall within two years after September 1, 1979, take such actions as may be necessary to—

(1) identify the geographical location of existing or potential markets for recovered materials;

(2) identify the economic and technical barriers to the use of recovered materials; and

(3) encourage the development of new uses for recovered materials.

(Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §5003, as added Pub. L. 94–580, §2, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2821; amended Pub. L. 96–482, §21(b), Oct. 21, 1980, 94 Stat. 2346.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1980—Pub. L. 96–482 substituted "September 1, 1979" for "October 21, 1976".