alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32131-32132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12827]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Research, Evaluation and Communication; 
Notice of Meetings

    In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 
as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following 
meetings:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Research, Evaluation and 
Communication (1210).
    Date/Time:

July 6, 2000--Room 380 (8 a.m.-6 p.m.)
July 7, 2000--Room 380 (8 a.m.-6 p.m.)
July 17, 2000--Rooms 120, 130, 920 and 970 (2 p.m.-6 p.m.)
July 18, 2000--Rooms 120, 130, 920 and 970 (8 a.m.-6 p.m.)
July 19, 2000--Rooms 120, 130, 920 and 970 (8 a.m.-6 p.m.)

    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Nora Sabelli, Program Director, Research 
Evaluation and Communication Division, National Science Foundation, 
Room 855, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. (703) 306-
1650.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate IERI Proposals as part of the 
selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.


[[Page 32132]]


    Dated: May 17, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-12827 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Eric Herlyn, hereby certifies, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|1. | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Manas Petroleum
      Corporation for the period ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|2. | information contained in the quarterly report on Form
      10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of Manas Petroleum
Corporation.                              

|Date: May 20, 2009                                                                                | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                                                                  | 
|/s/ Erik
      Herlyn                                                                             | 
|Erik Herlyn                                                                                       | 
|Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial
      Officer                                 | 
|(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer
      and Principal Accounting Officer) | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Manas Petroleum
Corporation and will be retained by Manas Petroleum Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Fish and Wildlife Service 

# AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of receipt of application.

                    The following applicant has applied for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531,                     *et seq.*).                 

## Permit Number TE805269-6 

Applicant: Daniel A. Soluk, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois. 

The applicant requests a permit amendment to take Hine's Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana) in the states of Alabama, Michigan, Missouri and Ohio. The applicant is currently authorized to conduct take in Illinois and Wisconsin. Activities are proposed for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild. 

Written data or comments should be submitted to the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056, and must be received within 30 days of the date of this publication. 

Documents and other information submitted with this application are available for review by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056. Telephone: (612/713-5343); FAX: (612/713-5292). 

Dated: May 12, 2000. 

Charles M. Wooley, 

Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Region 3, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 

[FR Doc. 00-12573 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
§ 500.263 Authority of the Administrative Review Board. The Administrative Review Board may modify or vacate the Decision and Order of the Administrative Law Judge whenever it concludes that the Decision and Order: ( a ) Is inconsistent with a policy or precedent established by the Department of Labor,
( b ) Encompasses determinations not within the scope of the authority of the Administrative Law Judge,
( c ) Awards attorney fees and/or other litigation expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act which are unjustified or excessive, or
( d ) Otherwise warrants modifying or vacating.
[54 FR 13330, Mar. 31, 1989, as amended at 86 FR 1786, Jan. 11, 2021]
§ 1952.9 Maryland. ( a ) The Maryland State plan received initial approval on July 5, 1973.
( b ) The Maryland State plan received final approval on July 18, 1985.
( c ) Under the terms of the 1978 Court Order in *AFL-CIO* v. *Marshall,* compliance staffing levels (benchmarks) necessary for a “fully effective” enforcement program were required to be established for each State operating an approved State plan. In September 1984 Maryland, in conjunction with OSHA, completed a reassessment of the levels initially established in 1980 and proposed revised compliance staffing benchmarks of 36 safety and 18 health compliance officers. After opportunity for public comment and service on the AFL-CIO, the Assistant Secretary approved these revised staffing requirements on July 18, 1985.
( d ) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit *http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/maryland.html .*
(79 South. 633)

#### HARRIS v. STATE.

(6 Div. 451.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 28, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; H. B. Poster, Judge.

Jack Harris was convicted of an offense, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

S. D. & O. D. Logan, of Centerville, for appellant. E. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

The questions presented by this appeal were, considered in Curlee v. State, ante, p. 62, 75 South. 268, Powell v. State, ante, p. 63, 75 South. 270, and Pierson v. State, ante, p. 197, 76 South. 487; and, on authority of these eases, the judgment must be reversed.

Reversed and remanded.
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 4.154 Employees covered by sections 2(a)(3) and (4).

The safety and health standards of section 2(a)(3) and the notice requirements of section 2(a)(4) of the Act (see § 4.183) are applicable, in the absence of a specific exemption, to every service employee engaged by a contractor or subcontractor to furnish services under a contract subject to section 2(a) of the Act.
`[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 107 Referred in House (RFH)]







110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 107


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2009

           Referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION


 
  Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the rights of Members of 
 Congress (or any employee of a Member of Congress authorized by that 
      Member) to lead tours of the United States Capitol complex.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) Members of Congress (or any employee of a Member of 
        Congress authorized by that Member) should not be prohibited, 
        with or without prior notice to the Architect of the Capitol, 
        the Chief Executive Officer for Visitor Services, or the 
        Capitol Guide Service, from taking guests or visitors into the 
        publicly accessible areas of the United States Capitol complex 
        during normal business hours;
            (2) nothing in this resolution shall be construed to affect 
        the authority granted to employees of Members of Congress by 
        the respective Members relating to the movement of such 
        employees through the United States Capitol complex;
            (3) at the direction of the Capitol Police Board or the 
        fire marshal, the taking of guests or visitors into the 
        publicly accessible areas of the United States Capitol complex 
        by a Member of Congress (or any employee of a Member of 
        Congress authorized by that Member) should be temporarily 
        suspended or otherwise subject to restriction for safety or 
        security reasons to the same extent as guided tours of the 
        United States Capitol complex which are led by the Architect of 
        the Capitol or the Capitol Guide Service; and
            (4) nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted to 
        contradict the Congressional staff-led tour policy that ensures 
        that tours of the Capitol are conducted by staff members who 
        have undergone mandatory life safety and historical accuracy 
        training.

            Passed the Senate December 11 (legislative day, December 
      10), 2008.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.`
#### §§ 2706.161-2706.169 [Reserved]
<PAGE>

                                ITEM 11 - CONTINUED

                                    ITEM 401(l)

                                 PERFORMANCE GRAPH

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  1990       1991      1992      1993     1994     1995
                                                  ----       ----      ----      ----     ----     ----
<S>                                               <C>        <C>       <C>       <C>      <C>      <C>
Class A Common Stock                               100        113       175       225      229      316
Class B Common Stock                               100        120       232       290      283      395
Dow Jones Equity Index                             100        132       144       158      159      221
Dow Jones Home Construction Index                  100        174       224       285      194      288

</TABLE>

Assuming that the value of the investment in Liberty Homes, Inc. Class A and 
Class B Common Stock and each index was $100 on December 31, 1990 and all 
dividends were reinvested.


                                      38
89–008 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 115–1103 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL (S. 2322) TO AMEND THE 

FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT TO DEFINE THE TERM NATURAL CHEESE 

DECEMBER 21, 2018.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. NEWHOUSE, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 1185] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 1185, by a record vote of 6 to 2, report the same to the 

House with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of S. 2322, the Codifying Useful Regulatory Definitions Act, under a closed rule. The 

resolution provides one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The resolution waives all points 

of order against consideration of the bill. The resolution provides 

that the bill shall be considered as read. The resolution waives all 

points of order against provisions in the bill. The resolution provides one motion to commit. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

Although the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the Committee is not aware of any points of 

order. The waiver is prophylactic in nature. 

Although the resolution waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, the Committee is not aware of any points of order. 

The waiver is prophylactic in nature. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

The results of each record vote on an amendment or motion to 

report, together with the names of those voting for and against, are 

printed below: 

2 

Rules Committee record vote No. 287 

Motion by Mr. Cole to report the rule. Adopted: 6–2 

Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote 

Mr. Cole ............................................................ Yea Mr. McGovern ................................................... Nay 

Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea Mr. Hastings of Florida ................................... ...................

Mr. Burgess ...................................................... ................... Mr. Polis ........................................................... ...................

Mr. Collins ........................................................ Yea Mrs. Torres ....................................................... Nay 

Mr. Byrne .......................................................... Yea 

Mr. Newhouse ................................................... Yea 

Mr. Buck ........................................................... ...................

Ms. Cheney ....................................................... ...................

Mr. Sessions, Chairman ................................... Yea 

Æ
t l 

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Zafer Taahhut Insaat ve Ticaret A.S. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W9 l 7PM-09-C-0065 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 58007 

Sam Zalman Gdanski, Esq. 

Gdanski & Gdanski, LLP 

Teaneck, NJ 

Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

Daniel B. McConnell, Esq. 

James A. Wallace, Esq. 

Engineer Trial Attorneys 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East 

Winchester, VA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 17 September 2014 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58007, Appeal of Zafer Taahhut 

Insaat ve Ticaret A.S., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
#### § 452.27 National, international organizations, and intermediate bodies.

The officers of a national or international labor organization or of an intermediate body must be elected either directly by secret ballot among the members in good standing or indirectly by persons acting in a representative capacity who have been elected by secret ballot among all members in good standing.[22]

###### Footnotes -
  452.27

[22] See § 452.119 and following for discussion of indirect elections.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DONALD KIRKLAND, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-89-391-JFM, CA-96-176-HNM) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 26, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Kirkland, Appellant Pro Se. John Vincent Geise, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no revers ible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Kirkland , Nos.CR-89-391-JFM; CA-96-176-HNM (D. Md. May 30, 1996). We grant Appellant's motion to "withdraw" from filing an informal brief. 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.

DISMISSED
(78 South. 417)

#### HERRING v. STATE.

(4 Div. 507.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 2, 1918.)

Criminal Law <&wkey;>1122(4) — Appeal—Scope.

The court will not review the trial court’s refusal of charges, in the absence of a hill of exceptions setting out the evidence or some of its tendencies.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; A. B. Foster, Judge.

James Lee Herring was convicted of having carnal knowledge of a girl between the ages of 12 and 16, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

P. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and Emmett S. Thigpen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense denounced by section 7700 of the Code of 1907 as amended by act approved March 17, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 187), and as a punishment for the offense was sentenced to a term of 2 years in the penitentiary.

The appeal is on the record without a bill of exceptions; and, as we have repeatedly held the court will not review the trial court on the refusal of charges requested by the defendant, in the absence of a hill of exceptions setting out the evidence or some of its tendencies. Mitchell v. State, 14 Ala. App. 104, 71 South. 982; Dorough v. State, 14 Ala. App. 110, 72 South. 208.

The proceedings in the ease appearing of record here are, in all tilings, regular and the judgment and sentence will be affirmed.

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SALEM HABIB MATAR,

Petitioner,

 v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-70522

Agency No. A070-818-836

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 10, 2020** 

Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Salem Habib Matar (“Matar”) seeks review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen, which alleged

ineffective assistance of counsel and changed country conditions in Lebanon. We

deny the petition.

FILED

JUN 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Matar’s untimely motion to

reopen, which was filed fifteen years after the final order in his case. Although Matar

contends he is entitled to equitable tolling based on ineffective assistance of counsel,

he has failed to show he exercised due diligence in discovering his counsel’s alleged

shortcomings. Compare Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 1000 & n.7 (9th Cir.

2007) (holding that a petitioner acted with due diligence where he “demonstrated a

steadfast pursuit of his case” despite his “complete ignorance” of his original lawyer’s

errors), with Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096–97 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that

a petitioner had not acted with due diligence where he took no action for six months

“to definitively learn of [his lawyer’s] fraud after he became suspicious of the fraud”). 

In addition, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Matar had not

established prejudice from his counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness. Matar failed to

demonstrate plausible grounds for relief on his underlying claims and does not point

to any error in the immigration judge’s original decision, which found him not

credible and statutorily ineligible for asylum. Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814,

826 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Matar also sought to reopen under the exception for changed circumstances in

the country of nationality. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Matar has a heavy burden and

must demonstrate that “circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who

2
previously did not have a legitimate claim” now does, Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d

942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004), and that his predicament is “appreciably different from the

dangers faced by [his] fellow citizens.” Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir.

1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in

holding that the current conditions evidence submitted with Matar’s motion to reopen

is not qualitatively different from the previous evidence and does not show an

individualized risk of persecution, especially after being out of the country for over

two decades. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010). 

PETITION DENIED.

3