alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 76466]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30879]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for a license as a 
Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier (NVO) and/or Ocean Freight 
Forwarder (OFF)--Ocean Transportation Intermediary (OTI) pursuant to 
section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 
409 and 46 CFR 515). Notice is also hereby given of the filing of 
applications to amend an existing OTI license or the Qualifying 
Individual (QI) for a license.
    Interested persons may contact the Office of Transportation 
Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573.
    CIL Freight Inc. (NVO & OFF), 1990 Lakeside Parkway, <greek-i>300, 
Tucker, GA 30084. Officers: Pui Pui So, Vice President, (Qualifying 
Individual), Jianjun Gan, President/Secretary/Treasurer, Application 
Type: Add NVO Service.
    Continental Services & Carrier Inc. (NVO & OFF), 6045 NW. 87th 
Avenue, Miami, FL 33178. Officers: Rodolfo Luciani, Vice President, 
(Qualifying Individual), Mirtha Lopez, President, Application Type: Add 
OFF Service.
    Global Cargo Express, Inc. (NVO), 2063 S. Atlantic Blvd., Suite 
307, Monterey Park, CA 91754. Officer: Yufu Xing, President/Secretary/
Treasurer, (Qualifying Individual), Application Type: Add OFF Service.
    IAL Container Line (USA) Inc. (NVO & OFF), 50 Cragwood Road, 
<greek-i>115, South Plainfield, NJ 07080. Officers: Peter George, 
President/Secretary/Treasurer, (Qualifying Individual), Arjun Menon, 
Director, Application Type: QI Change.
    KSB Shipping & Logistics LLC (NVO & OFF), 50 Cragwood Road, Suite 
123, South Springfield, NJ 07080. Officer: Satish K. Sharma, Member/
Manager, (Qualifying Individual), Application Type: Add OFF Service.
    North Atlantic International Ocean Carrier Inc. (NVO), 1550 
Matassino Road, New Castle, DE 19720. Officer: Efren D. Jimenez, 
President, (Qualifying Individual), Application Type: Business 
Structure Change/Add OFF Service.
    Payless Overseas Shipping LLC (NVO & OFF), 21120 LOP 494, New 
Caney, TX 77357. Officers: Khaldoon Barakat, CEO, (Qualifying 
Individual), Hossam (Sam) Barakat, President/General Manager, 
Application Type: Name Change.
    T.V.L. Global Logistics (N.Y.) Corp. (NVO), 36-54 Main Street, 
Flushing, NY 11354. Officers: Tony Lu, Vice President, (Qualifying 
Individual), Application Type: QI Change.

    Dated: December 3, 2010.
Rachel E. Dickon,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30879 Filed 12-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 1 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 2 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 3 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 4 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 5 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 6 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 7 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 8 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 9 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 10 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 11 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 12 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 13 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 14 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 15 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 16 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 17 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 18 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 19 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 20 of 21
Case 2:06-cv-00618-MEF-SRW Document 73-10 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 21 of 21
Exhibit 13.2

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 the annual report of Rodman International Enterprise III, Ltd.
(the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Kirk M. Warshaw,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, as amended; and                  
| |     |                                                                                                                                                      
| | (2) | The
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

|                              
|------------------------------
|Dated: June
 26, 2009         
|                              
|/s/ Kirk M.
 Warshaw          
|                              
|Kirk M.
 Warshaw              
|Chief
 Financial Officer      
|(Principal
 Financial Officer)

A signed
original of this certification 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.

---
Maddox Ungar Silberstein, PLLCCPAs and Business Advisors


Phone (248) 203-0080


Fax (248) 281-0940


30600 Telegraph Road, Suite 2175


Bingham Farms, MI 48025-4586


www.maddoxungar.com














September 15, 2009





To the Board of Directors of


Atheron, Inc.


Makati City 1235, Philippines





To Whom It May Concern:








Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





Maddox Ungar Silberstein, PLLC, hereby consents to the use in the Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1, Annual Report Under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, filed by Atheron, Inc. of our report dated November 26, 2008, relating to the financial statements of Atheron, Inc., a Nevada Corporation, for the periods ending August 31,
2008 and 2007.





Sincerely,








/s/ Maddox Ungar Silberstein, PLLC


Maddox Ungar Silberstein, PLLC
Case 2:06-cv-00654-MEF-WC Document 3 Filed 08/04/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### § 58.625 Fruit or syrup feeders.

Fruit or syrup feeders inject flavoring material into the semi-frozen product. Product contact surfaces shall be constructed of stainless steel or equally corrosion resistant metal and all pumps shall be in accordance to 3-A Sanitary Standards for dairy equipment. The feeder shall be constructed to enable complete disassembly for cleaning and sanitizing.
213.305 Imprest funds and third party drafts.

213.305-3 Conditions for use.

Parent topic: Subpart 213.3 - SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION METHODS
§ 718.301 Applicability. ( a ) This subpart is applicable to programs administered by the Farm Service Agency under chapters VII and XIV of this title, except for an agricultural credit program carried out under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 *et seq.*), as amended. Administration of this subpart shall be under the supervision of the Deputy Administrator, except that such authority shall not limit the exercise of authority allowed State Executive Directors of the Farm Service agency as provided for in § 718.307.
( b ) Section 718.306 does not apply to a function performed under either section 376 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 *et seq.*), or a conservation program administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture.
( c ) The relief provisions of this part cannot be used to extend a benefit or assistance not otherwise available under law or not otherwise available to others who have satisfied or complied with every eligibility or compliance requirement of the provisions of law or regulations governing the program benefit or assistance.
[67 FR 66307, Oct. 31, 2002, as amended at 80 FR 41998, July 16, 2015]
§ 62.208 Publication of assessment status. Approved programs shall be posted for public reference on: *https://www.ams.usda.gov .* Such postings shall include: ( a ) Program name and contact information;
( b ) Products or services covered under the scope of approval;
( c ) Effective dates of approval;
( d ) Control numbers of official assessments, as appropriate; and
( e ) Any other information deemed necessary by the Administrator.
(Republished)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence Carpenter, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on March 17, 1978, unanimously affirmed. The order of this court entered on April 22, 1980 [75 AD2d —] is hereby vacated. No opinion. Concur—Birns, J. P., Fein, Sandler, Markewich and Bloom, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Juan Carlos SORTO, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-5205.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 23, 2007.

Decided: Aug. 28, 2007.

Lisa S. Costner, Lisa S. Costner, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*213PER CURIAM:

Juan Carlos Sorto seeks to appeal his convictions and 123-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least fifty grams of methamphetamine and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Sorto’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Although notified of his right to do so, Sorto has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

After conducting a de novo review of the record as required by *Anders,*we agree that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. We find that the district court conducted a thorough colloquy pursuant to Fed.R.CrimP. 11 and properly ascertained that Sorto’s plea was knowing and voluntary. We also find that the court sentenced Sorto within a properly calculated Guidelines range, after granting the Government’s motion for a five-level downward departure based on substantial assistance. To the extent that counsel notes that Sorto voiced some concerns about trial counsel prior to entering his guilty plea, we decline to address any potential ineffective assistance of counsel claim as no ineffective representation conclusively appears from the record. *See United States v. Baldovinos,*434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*546 U.S. 1203, 126 S.Ct. 1407, 164 L.Ed.2d 107 (2006).

Accordingly, we affirm Sorto’s convictions and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 2, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-51134

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RODOLFO VALENZUELA-AVITIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-1089-ALL-FM

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rodolfo Valenzuela-Avitia was convicted following pleading

guilty to one count of illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326. Valenzuela-Avitia has filed an unopposed motion to

remand his case for re-sentencing, stating that both “parties

agree that re-sentencing is appropriate and just” in light of the

Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct.

738 (2005).

Valenzuela-Avitia’s unopposed motion to remand for resentencing in Booker is GRANTED, and the Government’s previously
No. 04-51134

-2-

filed motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. The Government’s

request for an extension of time in which to file its brief is

DENIED AS MOOT. We VACATE the district court’s sentence and

REMAND for re-sentencing in accordance with Booker.

MOTION TO REMAND GRANTED; SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE DENIED; MOTION

TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING BRIEF DENIED AS MOOT; VACATED AND

REMANDED FOR RE-SENTENCING.
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
  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/ Freddie M. KotekName:
    Freddie M. KotekTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
    March 30, 2010
EXHIBIT 99.1

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

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with  the  accompanying  Quarterly Report of Eye Care Centers of
America,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  on  Form 10-Q (the "Report") for the quarterly
period  ended  September  28,  2002,  I,  David  E. McComas, President and Chief
Executive  Officer  of Eye Care Centers of America, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certify  pursuant  under  18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

(1)  such  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 such Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:  November  12,  2002                  By:     /s/  David  E.  McComas
                                                     ----------------------
                                                     David  E.  McComas
                                                     President  and
                                                     Chief  Executive  Officer
# 52.244-3 [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**52.244 [Reserved]
204.802 Contract files.

(a) Any document posted to the Electronic Data Access (EDA) system is part of the contract file and

is accessible by multiple parties, including the contractor. Do not include in EDA contract documents

that are classified, too sensitive for widespread distribution (e.g., personally identifiable information

and Privacy Act and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), or attachments that

cannot be practicably converted to electronic format (e.g., samples, drawings, and models).

Inclusion of any document in EDA other than contracts, modifications, and orders is optional.

(f) A photocopy, facsimile, electronic, mechanically-applied and printed signature, seal, and date are

considered to be an original signature, seal, and date.

Parent topic: Subpart 204.8 - CONTRACT FILES
#### In the Matter of Susan Spencer, Respondent, v James Spencer, Appellant.

Submitted May 7, 2007;

decided July 2, 2007

Reported below, 35 AD3d 980.

Motion by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, New York Chapter, et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed.
#### In the Matter of Earl Gene R., Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed on the law and facts and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The juvenile .appeals from an order of Monroe County Family Court which adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and committed him to the Industrial School at Industry for an indefinite period not to exceed 18 months. The petition against him alleges that while in the company of another he knowingly and wrongfully attempted to take a purse from the person of Mrs. Boland in such a manner and in such circumstances which, if committed by an adult, would be attempt to commit the crime of grand larceny. While there was evidence that John P., who was tried in a joint trial with appellant, ran along the sidewalk and tried to' snatch Mrs. Boland’s purse, there was no evidence tending to connect appellant with that act. Mrs. Boland testified that she saw another boy running in the center of the street whom she was unable to identify. A police officer testified that he questioned appellant. He asked appellant if he was involved in a purse snatching that evening and appellant answered *“*Yes ”. There being no other evidence connecting appellant with the offense his uncorroborated confession made out of court is insufficient to establish that he did the act charged against him (Family Ct. Act, § 744). (Appeal from order of Monroe County Family Court adjudging respondent to be a juvenile delinquent.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Moule and Henry, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 869
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 869 appear at 84 FR 45646, Aug. 30, 2019.

§ 869.106 Excess storage and transferring of agricultural products. ( a ) If at any time a warehouse operator stores an agricultural product in a warehouse subject to a license issued under the Act in excess of the warehouse capacity for which it is licensed, such warehouse operator must immediately notify AMS of such excess storage and the reason for the storage.
( b ) A warehouse operator who desires to transfer stored agricultural products to another warehouse may do so either by physical movement, by other methods as may be provided in the applicable licensing agreement, or as authorized by AMS.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-60334

 

ROGER REEVES

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SANDERSON PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC.

Defendant-Appellant,

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(96CV197-S-D)

- - - - - - - - - -

September 13, 2000

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this age discrimination suit, pursuant to the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, PlaintiffAppellant Roger Reeves brought suit against Defendant-Appellant

Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. (“Sanderson”) alleging that he

was terminated because of his age. The district court awarded

Reeves $28,490.80 in front pay, representing two years’ lost
1 See Shattuck v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 49 F.3d 1106, 1110

(5th Cir. 1995); Hadley v. VAM, 44 F.3d 372, 375 (5th. Cir. 1995).

2Walther v. Lone Star Gas Company, 952 F.2d 119, 127 (5th.

Cir. 1992) (emphasis added).

2

income, and $35,000 in liquidated damages, as determined by the

jury. 

We reversed the district court’s denial of Sanderson’s motion

for judgment as a matter of law. The Supreme Court of the United

States then reversed our decision and remanded the case to us for

further proceedings not inconsistent with their decision. By

motion, Sanderson has asked us to address on remand the propriety

of the district court’s award of front pay, an issue not addressed

in our earlier decision. We grant that motion and proceed to

address the question of front pay.

The standard of review here is abuse of discretion.1

“[A] substantial liquidated damages award may indicate that an

additional award of front pay is inappropriate or excessive.”2

Sanderson argues that the district court should not have granted

front pay here as the liquidated damages are greater than two

years’ lost income and thus their award would be punitive in

effect. Even though district courts may, in their discretion,

refuse to award front pay when awarding substantial liquidated

damages, this does not mean that they must refuse to do so. We

cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in

awarding front pay in addition to liquidated damages.
3

We therefore affirm the district court’s original judgment, as

instructed by the Supreme Court, including the award of front pay,

and remand this case to the district court for reentry of its

original judgment.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
52.223-4 Recovered Material Certification.       As prescribed in 23.406(c), insert the following provision:          Recovered Material Certification (May 2008)          As required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C.6962(c)(3)(A)(i)), the offeror certifies, by signing this offer, that the percentage of recovered materials content for EPA-designated items to be delivered or used in the performance of the contract will be at least the amount required by the applicable contract specifications or other contractual requirements.          (End of provision)    **Parent topic:** 52.223 [Reserved]
52.216-22 Indefinite Quantity.

As prescribed in 16.506(e), insert the following clause:

Indefinite Quantity (Oct 1995)

(a) This is an indefinite-quantity contract for the supplies or services specified, and effective for the

period stated, in the Schedule. The quantities of supplies and services specified in the Schedule are

estimates only and are not purchased by this contract.

(b) Delivery or performance shall be made only as authorized by orders issued in accordance with

the Ordering clause. The Contractor shall furnish to the Government, when and if ordered, the

supplies or services specified in the Schedule up to and including the quantity designated in the

Schedule as the "maximum." The Government shall order at least the quantity of supplies or services

designated in the Schedule as the "minimum."

(c) Except for any limitations on quantities in the Order Limitations clause or in the Schedule, there

is no limit on the number of orders that may be issued. The Government may issue orders requiring

delivery to multiple destinations or performance at multiple locations.

(d) Any order issued during the effective period of this contract and not completed within that period

shall be completed by the Contractor within the time specified in the order. The contract shall

govern the Contractor’s and Government’s rights and obligations with respect to that order to the

same extent as if the order were completed during the contract’s effective period; provided, that the

Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract after _______________

[insert date].

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.216 [Reserved]