alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 77147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26498]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-48-2020]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 201--Holyoke, Massachusetts, 
Authorization of Production Activity, ProAmpac Holdings, Inc. (Flexible 
Packaging Applications), Westfield, Massachusetts

    On July 27, 2020, ProAmpac Holdings, Inc., submitted a notification 
of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility 
within Subzone 201D, in Westfield, Massachusetts.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (85 FR 47166, August 4, 2020). On 
November 24, 2020, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's 
decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this 
time. The production activity described in the notification was 
authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, 
including Section 400.14.

    Dated: November 24, 2020.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26498 Filed 11-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<page> EXHIBIT 32.01



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




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Morgan Stanley
Cornerstone Fund IV L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Walter
Davis, President of Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, 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 operations of the Partnership.









By:   /s/ Walter Davis

Name:		Walter Davis
Title:	President of Demeter Management Corporation,
			the general partner of the Partnership

Date:		May 15, 2008
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 23, 2022

No. 04-22-00030-CR

Jorge Rene VELASCO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-CRN-000108-D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On March 18, 2022, we ordered appellant to file a response indicating whether the 

reporter’s record was complete because it was unclear whether court reporter David Laurel was 

responsible for a portion of the record. On March 21, 2022, appellant filed a response 

confirming Mr. Laurel was responsible for transcripts covering hearings for May 29, 2019 and 

May 30, 2019. Appellant also stated Mr. Laurel is currently working on the transcripts.

Accordingly, we order court reporter David Laurel to file his portion of the record by April 22, 

2022.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 23rd day of March, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7520

JAYSON BRADLEY WHITE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PRIME CARE LLC; BETSY C. JIVIDEN, Commissoner,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Clarksburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00112-JPB-JPM)

Submitted: October 13, 2022 Decided: October 17, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jayson Bradley White, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7520 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/17/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jayson Bradley White appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that the action 

be dismissed and advised White that failure to file timely, specific objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 858 

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). 

Although White received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation, he has waived appellate review because the objections were not 

specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See

Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate 

judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with 

sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the 

objection” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of 

the district court. 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7520 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/17/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7520 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/17/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Shengtai Pharmaceutical, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Yiru Shi, Chief 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:





1.The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





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




Date:
August 13, 2009





SHENGTAI
      PHARMACEUTICAL, INC./s/ Yiru ShiYiru
      ShiChief
      Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 982
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 64 FR 26640, May 14, 1999, and at 89 FR 38293, May 7, 2024.

§ 982.104 HUD review of application. ( a ) *Competitive funding under NOFA.* For competitive funding under a NOFA, HUD must evaluate an application on the basis of the selection criteria stated in the NOFA, and must consider the PHA's capacity and capability to administer the program.
( b ) *Approval or disapproval of PHA funding application.* ( 1 ) HUD must notify the PHA of its approval or disapproval of the PHA funding application.
( 2 ) When HUD approves an application, HUD must notify the PHA of the amount of approved funding.
( 3 ) For budget authority that is distributed to PHAs by competitive process, documentation of the basis for provision or denial of assistance is available for public inspection in accordance with 24 CFR 12.14(b).
( c ) *PHA disqualification.* HUD will not approve any PHA funding application (including an application for competitive funding under a NOFA) if HUD determines that the PHA is disbarred or otherwise disqualified from providing assistance under the program.
[60 FR 34695, July 3, 1995, as amended at 64 FR 26642, May 14, 1999. Redesignated at 64 FR 56887, Oct. 21, 1999]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3256 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3256

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 3038 West Liberty Avenue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as the 
   ``Congressman James Grove Fulton Memorial Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3038 
West Liberty in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Congressman James Grove Fulton Memorial Post Office 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Congressman James Grove 
Fulton Memorial Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 25, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3256

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 3038 West Liberty Avenue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as the 
   ``Congressman James Grove Fulton Memorial Post Office Building''.
```
### §7316. Lifeboatmen

To qualify for an endorsement as lifeboatman, an applicant must provide satisfactory proof that the applicant—

(1) has the service or training required by regulation;

(2) is qualified professionally as demonstrated by examination; and

(3) is qualified professionally by actual demonstration.

(Pub. L. 98–89, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 544.)

| Revised section | Source section (U.S. Code) |
| --- | --- |
| 7316 | 46:643(l) |

Section 7316 establishes the minimum standards an individual must meet in order to qualify for an endorsement as lifeboatman.
### §57307. Recognition of gain for tax purposes

The owner of an obsolete vessel does not recognize a gain under the Federal income tax laws when the vessel is transferred to the Secretary of Transportation in exchange for a trade-in allowance under this chapter. The basis of the new vessel acquired with the allowance is the same as the basis of the obsolete vessel—

(1) increased by the difference between the cost of the new vessel and the trade-in allowance of the obsolete vessel; and

(2) decreased by the amount of loss recognized on the transfer.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1663.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 57307 | 46 App.:1160(e). | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title V, §510(e), as added Aug. 4, 1939, ch. 417, §7, 53 Stat. 1184; Pub. L. 97–31, §12(91), Aug. 6, 1981, 95 Stat. 161. |

Section

The words "for gain or loss upon a sale or exchange and for depreciation under the applicable Federal income-tax laws" and "or vessels exchanged for credit upon the acquisition of such new vessel" are omitted as unnecessary. In paragraph (1), the words "the difference between the cost of the new vessel and the trade-in allowance of the obsolete vessel" are substituted for "the amount of the cost of such vessel (other than the cost represented by such obsolete vessel or vessels)" for clarity.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________ )

JUANITA E. SUGUITAN

, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 12

- 1671 (EGS)

)

COMMISSIONER OF )

SOCIAL SECURITY )

ADMINISTRATION

, )

)

Defendants )

_________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

It is undisputed in this case brought under the Social Security Act that plaintiff did not

apply for the wife ’s insurance benefits sought from the C omplaint

. S ee Def.’s Mot. for Judgment

of Dismissal [Dkt. # 24] , Decl. of Patrick J. Herbst ¶ 9

. The Social Security Act au thorizes

judicial review of a “final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing

to which [the plaintiff] was a party[

. ] ” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). “ T he requirement that a plaintiff

must first present [her] claim to the agency is jurisdictional and cannot be waived[.]” Cost v.

Soc. Sec. Admin ., 770 F. Supp. 2d 45, 48 (D.D.C.) aff'd , No. 11

- 5132, 2011 WL 6759544 (D.C.

Cir. Dec. 2, 2011) (citing Bowen v. City of New York , 476 U.S. 467, 483) ) (other citation

o mitted )

. Hence, the Court has no choice but to dismiss this case for want of subject matter

jurisdiction. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

DATE: March 25 , 201 5 SIGNED: EMMET G. SULLIVAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JU DGE
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 326 Reported in Senate (RS)]







                                                       Calendar No. 404
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 326

                          [Report No. 109-242]


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 16, 2005

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

                             April 20, 2006

 Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of April 7, 2006, 
                   by Mr. Domenici, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
To amend the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Act of 2000 to adjust 
the boundary of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. YUMA CROSSING NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

    Section 3(b) of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Act of 
2000 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 106-319; 114 Stat. 1281) is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(b) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall comprise the lands 
generally depicted on the map entitled `Yuma Crossing National Heritage 
Area Boundary Adjustment', numbered 903-80071, and dated October 16, 
2005.''.
                                                       Calendar No. 404

109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 326

                          [Report No. 109-242]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Act of 2000 to adjust 
the boundary of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 20, 2006

                       Reported without amendment`
#### § 891.818 Firm commitment application.

The sponsor will submit the firm commitment application including the mixed-finance proposal in a form described by HUD.
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
| Date:  | February 18, 2016 | By: |   | /s/ Martin S. Craighead |
|   |   |   |   | Martin S. CraigheadChairman andChief Executive Officer |
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|

 

**FORM 8-K**

 

CURRENT REPORT

 

Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

 

Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): November 13, 2006

 

|   | **GENERAL COMMUNICATION, INC.**                        |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) |   |

 

|   | **State of Alaska**             |   | **0-15279** |   | **92-0072737**      |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|-------------|--------|---------------------|--------|
|   | (State or other Jurisdiction of |   | Commission  |   | (I.R.S Employer     |   |
|   | Incorporation or organization)  |   | File Number |   | Identification No.) |   |

 

|   |                                     | **2550 Denali Street** |       |      |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------|------------------------|------------|-----------|--------|
|   |                                     | **Suite 1000**         |       |      |   |
|   |                                     | **Anchorage, Alaska**  |       | **99503** |   |
|   | (Address of Principal Executive offices) |                   | (Zip Code) |      |
|        |                                          |                        |            |           |        |  |

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (907) 868-5600

 

|   | NONE                                                          |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | (Former name or former address, if changed since last report) |   |

 

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligations of the registrant under any of the following provisions:

 

o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)

 

o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

 

o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

 

o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))

 

 

----
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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRI C. SCOTT

Plaintiff(s), No. C-09-01048 EDL

v. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL DISMISSAL

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

Defendants.

___________________________________/

The Court has been informed that this matter has fully settled. Therefore, I T I S

HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice, with leave to reinstate on or before

90 days for the purpose of proceeding with the litigation in the event a settlement has not been

completed prior to that date. In the event a request to reinstate the case is not filed and served on

opposing counsel on or before the foregoing date, the dismissal will be with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2010 _______________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01048-EDL Document 27 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002





The undersigned executive officers of
Kentucky First Federal Bancorp (the “Registrant”) hereby certify that this
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant.





By:
              /s/ Tony D. WhitakerName:
              Tony
      D. WhitakerTitle:
              Chief
      Executive Officer and ChairmanBy:
              /s/ R. Clay HuletteName:
              R.
      Clay HuletteTitle:
              Vice
      President, Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer





Date:
October 6, 2010
### §333. Willful or malicious interference

No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title III, §333, as added Pub. L. 101–396, §9, Sept. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 850.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, known as the Communications Act of 1934, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 609 of this title and Tables.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-91,369-01

EX P ARTE P ERVIS LE E ANDREWS, JR., Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. C-297-W011657- 1436114-A IN THE 297TH DIS TRICT COURT F ROM TARRA NT COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applican t was convicted of ag g rava ted assault and sentenc ed to life imprisonment. The Second Court of Appeal s af fi rm ed his conviction. Andrews v. State , No. 02-17-00052- CR (Tex. App.—For

t Worth J uly 12, 2018) (not desig nated for publication). Applicant filed this application fo r a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to t h i s Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. I n three g rounds, Applicant contends that trial counsel was ineffe ctive. The trial court signe d

an order desig nating is s u es an d d i rec ted counsel to respond, but this application was forwa rded befor e the trial court made finding s of fac t and conclusions of law. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 5). Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington ,2

466 U.S. 668 (1984). Acc ording ly , the rec ord should be develope d. The trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s g rounds. I n d ev elopi ng the rec ord, the trial court may use any

means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). Applicant appea rs to be repr esente d by counsel. I f he is not and the trial court elec ts to hold a hear ing, it shall deter mine whether Applicant i s i n d i gen t

. I f Applicant is indige n t an d wants t o be represe nted by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to repr esent him at the hear ing. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. I f counsel is appointed or reta ined, the trial c ourt shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s name

. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether trial counsel’s p er fo rm an ce was defic ient and Applicant was prejudice d. The trial court may make any ot h er finding s and conc lusions that it deems a ppropriate in response to Applica nt’s claims. The trial court shall make findings of fac t and conclusions o f law withi n ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motio n s, objections, proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: October

21, 2020 Do not publish