alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1463.8 Notification of assessments. ( a ) Once CCC has determined a national assessment, CCC will collect that amount on a quarterly basis from all domestic manufacturers and importers of tobacco products subject to § 1463.5.
( b ) 30 calendar days prior to the end of each calendar year quarter domestic manufacturers and importers of tobacco products will receive notification of: ( 1 ) The national assessment;
( 2 ) The percentage of the national assessment that has been allocated to each class of tobacco product and the total amount of assessments due from each such class;
( 3 ) Any adjustments that have been from the prior fiscal year with respect to the allocation of the gross domestic volume determined for use in a fiscal year among the classes of tobacco products;
( 4 ) An adjustment in the national assessment if CCC determines that the assessments imposed will result in insufficient funds due to changes in the amount of expenditures that CCC has determined will be made in a calendar year;
( 5 ) The volume of gross sales of each class of tobacco that CCC has allocated to the domestic manufacturer or importer of tobacco products for the purposes of determining such entity's adjusted market share. The volume of gross sales of each class of tobacco allocated to such an entity shall correspond to the quantity of the tobacco product that is removed into domestic commerce by each such entity;
( 6 ) The total volume of gross sales of each class of tobacco that CCC has allocated to a class of tobacco, within the gross domestic volume determined for use in a fiscal year, that was used for the purpose of determining a tobacco manufacturer's or tobacco importer's adjusted market share. The total volume of gross sales of each such class of tobacco shall correspond to the total quantity of the tobacco product that is removed into domestic commerce.
( 7 ) For that quarter, the adjusted market share of the domestic manufacturer or importer of tobacco products;
( 8 ) Beginning with the 2nd quarter of 2008, or as soon as practicable thereafter, the applied market share for that quarter of each other manufacturer and importer, for the applicable class of tobacco product of those manufacturers and importers that have provided such information to CCC in accordance with the provisions of § 1463.6, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
( 9 ) The manner in which assessments are to be remitted to CCC; and
( 10 ) Identification of those Department of the Treasury and Department of Homeland Security forms filed by the domestic manufacturer or importer of tobacco products that are used to calculate assessments.
[70 FR 7011, Feb. 10, 2005, as amended at 70 FR 17158, Apr. 4, 2005; 73 FR 23066, Apr. 29, 2008]
EXHIBIT 24

 

POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

          The undersigned, being a Director and/or Officer of IMC Global Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby constitutes and appoints Douglas A. Pertz, J. Reid Porter and Rose Marie Williams his or her true and lawful attorneys and agents, each with full power and authority (acting alone and without the other) to execute and deliver in the name and on behalf of the undersigned as such Director and/or Officer of the Company in the Company's capacity as the Administrative Managing General Partner of Phosphate Resource Partners Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership (the "Partnership"), the Annual Report of the Partnership on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001 (the "Annual Report") under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and to execute and deliver any and all amendments to the Annual Report for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and in connection with the foregoing, to do any and all acts and things and execute any and all instruments which such attorneys and agents may deem necessary or advisable to enable the Partnership to comply with the securities laws of the United States and of any state or other political subdivision thereof. The undersigned hereby grants unto such attorneys and agents, and each of them, full power of substitution and revocation in the premises and hereby ratifies and confirms all that such attorneys and agents may do or cause to be done by virtue of these presents.

Dated this ____ day of March, 2002.

 

/s/ Raymond F. Bentele
1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Blue Dolphin Energy Company (the
Registrant).2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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
periods covered by this annual report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in
this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
annual report;4.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Registrant and we have:
     5.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the
Audit Committee of the Registrants Board of Directors:
    /s/ Ivar SiemIvar SiemChairman, Chief Executive Officer, President, Assistant Treasurer and Secretary
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### UNITED STATES v. TAYLOR.

No. 146, Docket 22902.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Jan. 13,1954.

Decided Feb. 3, 1954.

*111Courtney Townsend Taylor, pro se.

J. Edward Lumbard, U. S. Atty. for Southern Dist. of New York, New York City (Leon Silverman, Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for appellee.

Before FRANK, MEDINA and HINCKS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, having waived indictment, pleaded guilty on all counts of a multiple count information charging him with transporting and causing the transportation in interstate commerce of falsely made checks in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314, and was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. Appellant’s earlier motion to vacate the sentence was denied except that sentence on one of the 225 counts was vacated on the ground that the crime charged was not committed in interstate commerce, 111 F.Supp. 159; this decision was affirmed by this court, per *curiam.*See, 2 Cir., 207 F.2d 437.

On the present motion, appellant contends that the sentence imposed on him under his plea of guilty is excessive, erroneous, and should be corrected. He argues that, since § 2314 uses the word “securities” (in the plural) in making the transportation in interstate commerce of any “falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited securities” a crime punishable by fine and or imprisonment for “not more than ten years,” it was the intention of Congress to penalize the transportation of “securities” regardless of number, with a maximum term of ten years. Appellant thus argues that, upon conviction of the crime of transporting 224 forged or falsely made checks, as charged in a multiple-count information or indictment, a defendant may only be sentenced for a term of ten years and not longer.

This is but verbal play. 18 U.S.C. § 2311 defines the word “securities,” for purposes of § 2314, as “any note, stock certificate, bond, debenture, check, draft * * * or, in general, any instrument commonly known as a ‘security’ ”. The plural used in § 2314 obviously includes all the types of securities mentioned in § 2311.

Appellant also claims as error the failure of the court below to afford appellant an oportunity to file a brief in reply to the government’s brief in opposition to his motion. There were no factual issues raised by appellant’s motion. Indeed, he conceded that his motion involved merely legal points. Argument in support of his motion was stated in his motion papers, with no reservation or claim of right to be further heard. Since the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show that he is entitled to no relief (see 28 U.S.C. § 2255), we think the court below in this respect committed no error.

Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Colonial Sand and Stone Co., Inc., Petitioner, and Morewood Realty Corporation, Intervenor-Petitioner, v Robert F. Flacke, as Commissioner of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Respondent, and Port Washington Union Free School District, Intervenor-Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to article 78, *inter alia,*to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the New *895York Department of Environmental Conservation, dated March 14, 1979, which granted petitioner’s application for a mining permit subject to certain conditions. On the court’s own motion petition of Colonial Sand and Stone Company, Inc. (Colonial) is amended to join Morewood Realty Corporation (Morewood) as a petitioner therein. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. The determination of the respondent commissioner is supported by substantial evidence on the record. We note only that the issues regarding the commissioner’s decision to require Colonial to prepare an independent economic analysis of its proposed course of action and to post a reclamation bond of $2,000 per acre as conditions to the issuing of a mining permit have been rendered moot by the subsequent granting of the permit without such conditions (cf. *Demisay v Whalen,*59 AD2d 444). Special Term had no power to grant Morewood leave to intervene in this proceeding inasmuch as the prospective intervener did not include in its motion papers a proposed pleading pursuant to CPLR 1014 (see *Matter of Carriage Hill v Lane,*20 AD2d 914; *Matter of Howard v Diamond,*76 Mise 2d 809). Since Morewood’s brief does not interpose any additional claims or objections with respect to the determination which petitioner Colonial seeks to review, Morewood has, in effect, joined in the petition of Colonial. Accordingly, Colonial’s petition is deemed amended to join Morewood as a petitioner. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Rabin and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Spansion Inc. (the
Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i.) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 27, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |  |  |                                                     
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: December 31, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Randy W. Furr                                   
|                        |  |  |  | Randy W. Furr                                       
|                        |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frank Magwood, Appellant. Philip Ross, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 26, 1978, holding that claimant’s Special Unemployment Assistance benefits expired June 25, 1978, and, further, that claimant could not claim State benefits based on the same unemployment period used to support Federal benefits. Claimant filed a claim, effective December 20, 1977, for benefits under the Federal Special Unemployment Assistance Program of title 2 of the Emergency Jobs and Unemployment Assistance Act of 1974 (88 US Stat 1845, 1850) because his employment with the City of New York was not covered by State unemployment insurance. This Federal assistance program expired by its own terms on June 30, 1978. Subdivision 12 of section 590 of the Labor Law provides a method whereby benefits based upon previously uncovered employment and paid pursuant to the provisions of title 2 of the Federal Emergency Jobs and Unemployment Assistance Act of 1974 may be continued during the balance of 1978, after the termination of the Federal plan. This methodology, called a transitional claim, mandates that a claimant who had worked in uncovered employment, as did claimant herein, and used his period of uncovered service to qualify for Federal assistance, cannot use the same weeks of uncovered service to establish entitlement to State benefits. Here, when the number of weeks that claimant worked for New York City is deducted from the total number of weeks of employment during the base period, he clearly lacked the requisite number of weeks of *1015covered employment necessary to file a valid original claim. While it is clear that had claimant filed his claim on January 2, 1978 rather than on December 20, 1977, he would have qualified for State benefits since section 590 (subd 12, par [a]) of the Labor Law qualified prior uncovered employment prospectively from January 1, 1978, and thus enabled a claimant to add uncovered weeks of employment to periods of covered employment in determining whether he had sufficient employment to qualify for benefits, we cannot overturn the board’s determination based on claimant’s allegation that he was deceived by an insurance office employee who failed to advise him to wait until January 2, 1978 to file his claim. Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
MEDIATION REFERRALS

2006-0652.

#### Meijer Stores Ltd. Partnership v. Defiance Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2003-T-2035.

The following case has been referred to mediation pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(6):
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME, THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        1,593
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        121
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                             293
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                             0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                     185
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,192
<COMMON>                                           118
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                661
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                     779
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                6
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                               471
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                           37
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                      18
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       51
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                     830
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    2,192
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                          848
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                35
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                         738
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                         773
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                             75
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                  13
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                      88
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            23
<NET-INCOME>                                        65
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                       65
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                            37
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             377
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.37



</TABLE>
#### § 1782.16 Defeasance of Agency indebtedness.

Defeasance, or amending outstanding loan instruments and agreements to permit defeasance of Agency debt instruments, is prohibited.
#### Helen COLEMAN, Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.

No. 03-1452(E).

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

July 16, 2007.

Before HAGEL, MOORMAN, and DAVIS, Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

On July 9, 2007, the Veterans Law Group (movant) filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a late brief as amicus curiae pursuant to Rule 29 of this Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The movant argues that it became aware of the appeal last week, and it seeks to file a brief because of this case’s potential to affect many claimants.

However, Rule 29 provides that the ami-cus brief “must be filed within the time allowed the party whose position the ami-cus curiae supports unless the Court permits later filing.” *See*U.S. VetApp. R. 29(a). Here, the movant seeks to file an amicus brief nearly five months beyond the time period denoted in the Court rules. Because of the late filing and the advanced stage of the Court’s adjudication of the case, the motion will be denied, and the Clerk will return the submitted brief to the movant.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the unopposed motion for leave to file an amicus brief is DENIED. It is further

ORDERED that the movant’s brief is not accepted for filing. The Clerk of the *342Court is directed to return the brief to counsel with this order.
#### § 15.123 Appeals from ruling of hearing officer.

A ruling of the hearing officer may not be appealed to the Secretary prior to consideration of the entire proceeding by the hearing officer except with the consent of the hearing officer and where he certifies on the record or in writing that the allowance of an interlocutory appeal is clearly necessary to prevent exceptional delay, expense, or prejudice to any part or substantial detriment to the public interest. If an appeal is allowed, any party may file a brief with the Secretary within such period as the hearing officer directs. Oral argument will be heard in the discretion of the Secretary.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**AFFINITY GROUP HOLDING, INC.**

 

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

 

I, Michael A. Schneider, President and Chief Executive Officer ofAffinity Group Holding, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),hereby certify as follows:

 

1.                                       This statementis provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 in connection with theCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31,2009 (the “Periodic Report”);

 

2.                                       The PeriodicReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

3.                                       The informationcontained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company as of dates andfor the periods indicated therein.

 

 
| Date: June 5, 2009 |                                  |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                    |                                  |
|                    |                                  |
|                    | /s/ Michael A. Schneider              |
|                    | Michael A. Schneider                  |
|                    | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or such other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thewritten statement as required by Section 906, has been provided toAffinity Group Holding, Inc. and will be retained by Affinity GroupHolding, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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

      In connection with Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report of Blue Dolphin
Energy Company (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December
31, 2004 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof, I, Ivar Siem, Chairman and Chief Executive 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 my knowledge:

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

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

/s/Ivar Siem
------------------------------------

Ivar Siem

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

August 18, 2005
#### In re D.P. et al.; D.O., Appellant; Franklin County Children Services, Appellee.

[Cite as *In re D.P.,*109 Ohio St.3d 207, 2006-Ohio-2185.]

(No. 2005-2142

Submitted April 11, 2006

Decided May 17, 2006.)

John T. Ryerson, for appellant.

Robert J. McClaren, for appellee.

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *In re C.R.,*108 Ohio St.3d 369, 2006-Ohio-1191, 843 N.E.2d 1188.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
#### Annette DAVIS, petitioner, v. Jim NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

No. 06-841.

Feb. 20, 2007.

Case below, 190 FecLAppx. 951.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.