alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 9768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03035]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8183]

Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation Imposition 
of Missile Sanctions on Two Chinese Foreign Persons

AGENCY: Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, 
Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: A determination has been made that two foreign persons in 
China have engaged in activities that require the imposition of missile 
sanctions pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, as amended, and the 
Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (as carried out under 
Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001).

DATES: Effective Date: February 11, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Durham, Office of Missile, 
Biological, and Chemical Nonproliferation, Bureau of International 
Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State (202-647-4930). On 
U.S. Government procurement ban issues, Eric Moore, Office of the 
Procurement Executive, Department of State (703-875-4079).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 73(a)(1) of the Arms 
Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b(a)(1)); Section 11B(b)(1) of the 
Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2410b(b)(1)), as 
carried out under Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (hereinafter 
cited as the ``Export Administration Act of 1979''); and Executive 
Order 12851 of June 11, 1993; the U.S. Government determined on 
December 21, 2012 that the following foreign persons have engaged in 
missile technology proliferation activities that require the imposition 
of missile sanctions described in Section 73 of the AECA (22 U.S.C. 
2797b) and Section 11B of the EAA (50 U.S.C. Appx 24710b):
    Dalian Sunny Industries, (China), and its sub-units and successors; 
Li Fangwei (China) [also known as: Karl Lee].
    Accordingly, the following sanctions are being imposed on these 
foreign persons for two years:
    (A) Denial of all new individual export licenses for the transfer 
of MTCR Annex items to the sanctioned entities;
    (B) Denial of all U.S. Government contracts relating to MTCR Annex 
items with the sanctioned entities.
    These measures shall be implemented by the responsible departments 
and agencies of the United States Government as provided in Executive 
Order 12851 of June 11, 1993.

    Dated: February 5, 2013.
Simon Limage,
Acting Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and 
Nonproliferation.
[FR Doc. 2013-03035 Filed 2-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-25-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MARK VII, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 28,
1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRELY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                             414
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,135
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,693
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,697
<PP&E>                                           8,963
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,665
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,602
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,153
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           490
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,334
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,602
<SALES>                                        408,486
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               408,486
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  400,887
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   682
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 215
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,383
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,101
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,282
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,282
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .89
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the “the Report”) of APA
      Enterprises, Inc. a Minnesota corporation. (the “Company”), for the quarter
      ended June 30,2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
      the
      date hereof  (the “Report”),  the undersigned officer of the
      Company certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, that, to his knowledge




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




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




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.





August
      14, 2007






Signature:
      /s/ Bruce G. Blackey


Print
      Name: Bruce G. Blackey


Print
      Title: Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
      Officer)
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Form 10-K of Aksys, Ltd. (the “Company”) for theperiod ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William C. Dow, ChiefExecutive Officer and President 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 therequirements of Section 13 (a) or Section 15 (d) of the Securities and ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

(2)          the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|                   |   |                                   |
|------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
| Dated: March  28, 2003 | By:    |  /s/ William C. Dow               |
|                   |   |                                   |
|                   |   | William C.  Dow                        |
|                   |   | Chief  Executive Officer and President |

 

----
August 3, 2015

Mr. Eric Deroche

T Baker Smith, LLC

P.O. Box 2266

Houma, LA 70361

Dear Mr. Deroche:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

part 21 and §§ 45.23, 45.29, 61.3, 61. 2 3, 61.113(a) and (b), 61.133(a), 91.7(a), 91.9,

91.109(a), 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203, and 91.401

– 91.417 of Title 14, Code of Federal

Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and wh at you should

do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your May 13, 2015

, exemption request on behalf of T Baker Smith, LLC into the

public docket (No. FAA− 20 15

− 2140 ), but we are unable to process your request any further.

The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed).

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Avia tion Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 1 1.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

I f you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
§ 351.1 Authority, purpose, scope, and relationship to other authorities. ( a ) *Authority.* This part is issued by the FDIC under section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1851).
( b ) *Purpose.* Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act establishes prohibitions and restrictions on proprietary trading and investments in or relationships with covered funds by certain banking entities, including any insured depository institution as defined in section 3(c)(2) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(c)(2)) and certain subsidiaries thereof for which the FDIC is the appropriate Federal banking agency as defined in section 3(q) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(q)). This part implements section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act by defining terms used in the statute and related terms, establishing prohibitions and restrictions on proprietary trading and investments in or relationships with covered funds, and explaining the statute's requirements.
( c ) *Scope.* This part implements section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act with respect to insured depository institutions for which the FDIC is the appropriate Federal banking agency, as defined in section 3(q) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, and certain subsidiaries of the foregoing, but does not include such entities to the extent they are not within the definition of banking entity in § 351.2(c).
( d ) *Relationship to other authorities.* Except as otherwise provided in under section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the prohibitions and restrictions under section 13 of Bank Holding Company Act shall apply to the activities and investments of a banking entity, even if such activities and investments are authorized for a banking entity under other applicable provisions of law.
( e ) *Preservation of authority.* Nothing in this part limits in any way the authority of the FDIC to impose on a banking entity identified in paragraph (c) of this section additional requirements or restrictions with respect to any activity, investment, or relationship covered under section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act or this part, or additional penalties for violation of this part provided under any other applicable provision of law.
[79 FR 5805, Jan. 31, 2014, as amended at 84 FR 35021, July 22, 2019]
#### MARTIN v. BUTLER.

Note — wool receipt — proof of execution^-agent — authority»—intent—ratifying purchase fey taking the benefit of it.

A receipt for wool payable in six months at a bank is not a promissory note nor bill of exchange within the act dispensing with'proof in certain cases.

Where a note or receipt is signed by an agent, it must be show» that the agent had authority to act and that he signed the paper before it can be read in evidence.

If a parly had an interest in a factory, at which wool was received and worked up for his benefit, he will be considered as ratifying a purchase by an agent, though when he purchased he had no authority.

Debt, upon a receipt for wool, dated Litchfield, Ct. the 30th June, 1821, to he paid in six months at the Phoenix branch bank, signed *•C. C.*Wolcott, *agent.*Plea nil debet.

The plaintiff offered to read the receipt in evidence without proving its execution.

*Casiuell,*

objected.

*N. Wright,*for the plaintiff.

*Caswell*and *Starr,*for the defendant.

Lane, J.

This is not a promissory note nor a bill of exhange, and so is not within our statute dispensing with proof in certain cases. The right to read it in evidence, must be determined on common principles. The plaintiff must prove the authority of the agent and the execution by him of the paper, before he can read it.

Proof was then offered that before the date of this note Butler carried on the factory at Wolcotville, that Wolcott was the agent, and executed this receipt, and the Butlers failed in August, 1821. It also appeared that Fred. Wolcott built the factory and failed, and that Butler came to Cincinnati in June, 1821, sick, and continued so for some time, during which the factory stopped. It had frequently changed owners.

Lane, J.

to the jury. If the evidence satisfies you that the defendant was interested in carrying on this factory at the date of the receipt, and that Wolcott transacted the business as agent; ■it is not necessary, in the way the issue is made up, that Butler should then have been sole owner. The plaintiff’s right to recover in case Butler had any interest in the factory, depends upon his satisfying you, that Wolcott as Butler’s agent, bought the wool for him in pursuance of his authority, or that having purchased without authority, Butler received it and derived the benefit of the purchase, as thereby he would ratify the purchase as made for him.

Jury being unable to agree were discharged.
The Honorable Thomas C. Mummert III, United States Magistrate Judge for the 1 Eastern Dis trict of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition b y consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3225

___________ Janice Gilard-Jones, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri Ricky Poff; Majestic Associates, L.P., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 27, 1998 Filed: March 17, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jan ice Gilard-Jones appeals from a final order of the United States Distric t Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, entering judgment upon a jury verdict i n 1 favor of Majestic Associates in Gil ard-Jones & s employment discrimination action. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.-2-

Because Gi lard-Jones has not provided this court with a trial transcript, we are unable to review her arguments relating to the lack of suff icient evidence to support the jury verdict. SeeFed. R. App. P. 10(b) (describing appellant & s duty to order transcript of p roceedings); Meroney v. Delta Int & l Mach. Corp. , 18 F.3d 1436, 1437 (8th Cir
. 1994) (co urt unable to review issues raised by appellant who failed to provide tria l transcript after motion for preparation of transcript at governmen t expense was denied). Her complaints regarding her counsel & s deficient representation are not grounds fo r reversal in a civil act

ion. See Glick v. Henderson , 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988). Finally, Gilard-Jones consented to referral of her case to a magistrate judge. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Lewis Cass Munster, Respondent, *v.*David J. Benoliel, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

January, 1901.)

Trial — Refusal of court to accept, and have noted, additional requests of counsel is a fatal error.

The refusal of a trial justice to accept additional requests of counsel for the defendant, or to have them noted by the stenographer, when so requested, constitutes a fatal error in the conduct of the trial. Minster v. Benoliel, 32 Mise. Rep. 630, reversed.

Aeread from a judgment of the General Term of the City Court of the City of New York, affirming a judgment of Trial Term.

Ooudert Bros. (John P. Murray, of counsel), for appellant.

W-ahle & Stone (Charles G-. E. "Wahle, of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The refusal of the trial justice to accept the additional requests submitted by counsel for the defendant, and especially the refusal of the court to have them noted by the stenographer when so requested by counsel, constitute a fatal error in the conduct of the trial requiring a reversal of the judgment. Chapman v. McCormick, 86 N. Y. 479; O’Neil v. Dry Dock, E. B. & B. R. R. Co., 129 id. 125; Pfeffele v. Second Ave. R. R. Co., 34 Hun, 497. As the requests in question were improperly, excluded from the record by the trial justice, and are, therefore, not *587before us, we cannot assume that they were but repetitions of the instructions given to the jury.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerioh and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

 

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et. al.,

Debtor

 

PROMESA Title III

No. 17-03283 -LTS

(Jointly Administered) 

Re: ECF No. 23145

MOTION SUBMITTING CERTIFIED TRANSLATIONS

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

COMES NOW, Luis A. Rivera Siaca (“LARS”), through his undersigned counsel, and 

respectfully states and requests: 

1. On December 22, 2022, LARS filed a motion for payment of administrative rent 

(ECF No. 23145). Contemporaneously therewith, LARS filed a motion for leave to file 

documents in the Spanish language and for thirty (30) days to file certified translations thereof to 

the English language (ECF No. 23146). 

2. On December 22, 2022, the Court entered an order granting LARS until January 

23, 2023, at 5:00 p.m. (Atlantic Standard Time) to file certified translations to the English 

language of Exhibits A and C to the motion for payment of administrative rent (ECF No. 23151). 

3. LARS is filing herewith Exhibits A and C to his motion for the payment of 

administrative rent in the Spanish language together with their certified translation to the English 

language. 

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Court take notice of the above 

deeming LARS in compliance with the order of December 22, 2022.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23212 Filed:01/09/23 Entered:01/09/23 12:04:12 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I hereby certify that on this same date I electronically 

filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send 

notification of such filing to all ECF participants. 

San Juan, Puerto Rico this 9

th day of January 2023

s/Charles A. Cuprill-Hernández

USDC-PR 114312

Charles A. Cuprill, P.S.C., Law Offices

356 Fortaleza Street - Second Floor

San Juan, PR 00901

Tel.: 787-977-0515

Fax: 787-977-0518

E-mail: cauprill@cuprill.com

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23212 Filed:01/09/23 Entered:01/09/23 12:04:12 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
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.
 Small Business Administration [Declaration of Disaster #3249]
 Calhoun and Jefferson Counties and the contiguous counties of Bibb, Blount, Cherokee, Cleburne, Etowah, St. Clair, Shelby, Talladega, Tuscaloosa, and Walker in the State of Alabama constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by severe storms and tornadoes that occurred on April 2-3, 2000. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on June 12, 2000 and for economic injury until the close of business on January 16, 2001 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308. The interest rates are: PercentFor Physical Damage:Homeowners with credit available elsewhere
7.625Homeowners without credit available elsewhere
3.812Businesses with credit available elsewhere
8.000Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit available elsewhere
4.000Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit available elsewhere
6.750For Economic InjuryBusinesses and small agricultural cooperatives without credit available elsewhere
4.000
 The numbers assigned to this disaster are 324912 for physical damage and 9H0800 for economic injury. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008) Dated: April 13, 2000. Aida Alvarez, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 00-10021 Filed 4-20-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Stephen Jaskoey, by Frank Jaskoey, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, *v.*The Consolidated Gas Company of New York, Respondent.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment dismissing the action rendered by the Municipal Court of the city of New York; borough of Manhattan.

William C. Reddy, for appellant.

David McClure, for respondent.

*791
      *Per Curiam.*

The judgment in this ease must be affirmed on the authority of Wodroczka v. Consolidated Gas Co., 29 Misc. Rep. 637, which arose out of the same occurrence. A principal does not become liable for the acts of his contractor merely because he reserves the right of inspection as the work progresses. Kelly v. Mayor, 11 N. Y. 432.

Present: Giegebich and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.