alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 117 (Friday, June 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 37806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15227]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Geosciences; Notice of Meeting

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

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Geosciences (#1756).
    Date/Time: July 11, 2000; 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Place: Room 855; National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Clifford Jacobs, Section Head, UCAR and 
Lower Atmosphere Facilities Oversight Section, Room 775, Division of 
Atmospheric Sciences, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 306-1521.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate the UNIDATA Equipment proposals 
as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposal being reviewed includes 
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.

    Note: Closed portions are proper under Sunshine Act exemptions 
cited. The CMO's signature on this Notice is the required 
determination.


    Dated: June 12, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-15227 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
§ 101-26.102-3 Procurement leadtime. When GSA performs the purchasing services for other agencies or activities as contemplated by this § 101-26.102-3, calculation of the delivery dates required for the items involved must be based on the procurement leadtimes illustrated in the GSA publication, FEDSTRIP Operating Guide. These leadtimes are based on the normal time required after receipt of agency requisitions by GSA to effect delivery to destinations within the 50 States. ( a ) Time required to obtain any additional essential information from the requisitioning office for use in issuing a solicitation for bids or offers is not included in the leadtimes.
( b ) If unusually large quantities or complex items are required, leadtime adjustments should be made to reflect the specific requirement. As an example, standard furniture items can usually be delivered in less than 90 days after receipt of the requisition. However, for large quantity or complex orders requiring a definite quantity procurement, delivery times may range from 4 to 6 months. Footnotes relating to classes where this is a frequent occurrence are shown in the procurement leadtime table illustrated in the FEDSTRIP Operating Guide.
( c ) The procurement leadtime table illustrated in the FEDSTRIP Operating Guide does not apply to public exigency or other high priority requisitions; however, it should be used as a guide to establish realistic required delivery dates for such requisitions.
[32 FR 17939, Dec. 15, 1967, as amended at 40 FR 41093, Sept. 5, 1975; 57 FR 3949, Feb. 3, 1992]
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

The
undersigned, Chun Lu, the Chief Executive Officer of TEC TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the
Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1.   The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.   Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 5th day of
April, 2011.

| | /s/
      Chun Lu            
| | -----------------------------
| | Chun Lu                      
| | Chief Executive Officer      
| | (Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to TEC Technology, Inc. and will be retained by TEC
Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1997 AND THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
OCTOBER 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                             223
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,759
<ALLOWANCES>                                       900
<INVENTORY>                                     12,223
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,790
<PP&E>                                           8,273
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,403
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,993
<BONDS>                                          9,930
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            4,615
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           989
<OTHER-SE>                                    (14,117)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,410
<SALES>                                          2,783
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,783
<CGS>                                            2,464
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,464
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,747
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    33
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 436
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,897)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         9
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,906)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,906)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
§ 401.42 Passing hand lines. ( a ) At locks, hand lines shall be secured to the mooring lines and passed as follows: ( 1 ) A downbound vessel shall use its own hand lines, secured to the eye at the end of the mooring lines, by means of a bowline, which hand lines shall be passed to the linehandlers at the lock as soon as the vessel passes the open gates;
( 2 ) Hand lines shall be passed to upbound vessels by the linehandlers as soon as the vessel passes the open gates, and secured, by means of a clove hitch, to the mooring lines 60 cm behind the splice of the eye;
( 3 ) At Iroquois Lock and Lock 8, Welland Canal, both upbound and downbound vessels shall use their own hand lines as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; and
( 4 ) Upbound vessels of overall length in excess of 218 m in Locks 4 and 5, Welland Canal, shall secure the hand lien to the eye of the No. 1 mooring wire by means of a bowline.
( b ) Mooring lines shall not be passed over the side of a vessel in a manner dangerous to a lock crew.
(68 Stat. 93-96, 33 U.S.C. 981-990, as amended and secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 13 of sec. 2 of Pub. L. 95-474, 92 Stat. 1471)
[39 FR 10900, Mar. 22, 1974, as amended at 47 FR 51122, Nov. 12, 1982; 55 FR 48599, Nov. 21, 1990; 61 FR 19551, May 2, 1996; 70 FR 12972, Mar. 17, 2005]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40586 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. GERARDO CONTRERAS-MONTOYA Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:07-CR-137-1 Before KING, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gerarado Contreras-Montoya raises arguments that are foreclosed by Al mendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), whic h held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 8, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-40586

2 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
§ 84.05 Screens. ( a ) The sidelights of vessels of 20 meters or more in length shall be fitted with matt black inboard screens and meet the requirements of § 84.15. On vessels of less than 20 meters in length, the sidelights, if necessary to meet the requirements of § 84.15, shall be fitted with matt black inboard screens. With a combined lantern, using a single vertical filament and a very narrow division between the green and red sections, external screens need not be fitted.
( b ) On power-driven vessels less than 12 meters in length constructed after July 31, 1983, the masthead light, or the all-round light described in Rule 23(d)(§ 83.23(d) of this chapter) shall be screened to prevent direct illumination of the vessel forward of the operator's position.
Presidential Documents

3119

Federal Register

Vol. 65, No. 13

Thursday, January 20, 2000

Title 3—

The President

Memorandum of January 5, 2000

Delegation of Authority Under Section 1401(b) of the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65)

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United

States, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby delegate

to the Secretary of State the duties and responsibilities vested in the President

by section 1401(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2000 (‘‘the Act’’) (Public Law 106–65).

The Department of State shall obtain concurrence on the report from the

following agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce,

and the Director of Central Intelligence on behalf of the Intelligence Community prior to submission to the Congress.

Any reference in this memorandum to the provisions of any Act shall

be deemed to be a reference to such Act or its provisions as may be

amended from time to time.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal

Register

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, January 5, 2000.

.

œ–

[FR Doc. 00–1501

Filed 1–19–00; 8:45 am]

Billing code 4710–10–M
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5302 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5302

To designate the United States courthouse located at 1010 Fifth Avenue 
 in Seattle, Washington, as the ``William Kenzo Nakamura United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 26, 2000

  Mr. McDermott (for himself, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Metcalf, Mr. Baird, Mr. 
Hastings of Washington, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. Dicks, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Smith 
of Washington, Mr. Matsui, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, and Mr. Wu) introduced 
      the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the United States courthouse located at 1010 Fifth Avenue 
 in Seattle, Washington, as the ``William Kenzo Nakamura United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 1010 Fifth Avenue in 
Seattle, Washington, shall be known and designated as the ``William 
Kenzo Nakamura United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``William Kenzo Nakamura 
United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 116 (Thursday, June 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37536-37537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15093]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. GT00-31-000]


Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff and Filing of Non-Conforming Service Agreement

June 9, 2000.
    Take notice that on June 6, 2000, Northwest Pipeline Corporation 
(Northwest) tendered for filing and acceptance a Rate Schedule TF-1 
non-conforming service agreement. Northwest also tendered the following 
tariff sheet as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 
1, to be effective July 7, 2000:

Sixth Revised Sheet No. 364

    Northwest states that the service agreement contains a scheduling 
priority provision imposing subordinate primary corridor rights and 
that the tariff sheet is submitted to add such agreement to the list of 
non-conforming service agreements contained in Northwest's tariff.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections

[[Page 37537]]

385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such 
motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of 
the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be 
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-
208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-15093 Filed 6-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Walter *G.*HAYES, as Administrator of the Goods, Chattels and Credits of Helen Hayes, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The LANE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 45, Docket 25157.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 10, 1958.

Decided Oct. 21, 1958.

John M. Henley, Syracuse, N. Y. (Vincent A. O’Neil and Costello, Cooney & Fearon, Syracuse, N. Y., on the brief), for defendant-appellant.

Eugene M. Hanson, Utica, N. Y., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and MEDINA and LUMBARD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from a judgment entered by Judge Brennan, Northern District of New York, on a jury’s verdict for the plaintiff for $27,500 in a wrongful death action under the New York Decedent Estate Law, § 130 et seq. jurisdiction over which was based on diversity of citizenship.

Helen Hayes was killed in an automobile accident on May 20, 1957 on Route 12 near Trenton, New York. At the time a 3.7 mile strip of Route 12 was being wid*280ened by the defendant from two lanes to four lanes, while north of this construction, where the accident occurred, Route 12 was a four lane divided highway. At the point where the defendant’s job ended and the existing four lane highway began, northbound traffic was required to shift over to the right, since the two lane road, running alongside the construction work, was directly in line with the southbound lanes of the four lane divided highway.

At about 9:25 P.M. on the day in question as the decedent was driving her car north on Route 12, she went up the two lane road past the construction site and apparently missed the changeover strip despite a “Keep Right” sign. She continued along the southbound side of the highway some nine-tenths of a mile past the turn off and collided head-on with a southbound vehicle driven by one James Thomas.

The evidence was sufficient to pose for the jury the question of whether the defendant was negligent in not adequately indicating that northbound traffic should go to the right to avoid the southbound traffic. Although the defendant had placed a lighted pot flare near the “Keep Right” sign which bore a red arrow and had placed a line of yellow traffic cones on the easterly or right edge of the path for northbound traffic, there was evidence that these markers may not have been enough as many other motorists, including the rescue tow truck which drove up just a few minutes after the accident, failed to make the turn.

The evidence that other northbound drivers also missed the turn despite the “Keep Right” sign was clearly relevant on the issue of whether the turn was properly marked, as the conditions of the other occurrences were sufficiently similar. Gastel v. City of New York, 1909, 194 N.Y. 15, 18, 86 N.E. 833; Burns v. City of New York, 2 Dept. 1947, 272 App.Div. 1063, 76 N.Y.S.2d 439; Richardson on Evidence § 201 (6 Ed. 1955).

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ANH TUAN NGUYEN, AKA Andrew 

Nguyen, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-50264 

D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00437-ODW-2 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2, 2020**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Anh Tuan Nguyen appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges 

the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy 

to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, aiding and abetting wire 

fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2(a) and 1343, and aiding and abetting the use of 

* 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).

FILED

DEC 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-50264 

unauthorized access devices in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2(a) and 1029(a)(2). We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Nguyen argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

consider or explain the disparity between his custodial sentence and his codefendant’s non-custodial sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. 

Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there 

is none. The record reflects that the district court expressly considered the need to 

avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), heard and 

considered Nguyen’s arguments in favor of a lower sentence, and adequately 

explained its determination that the below-Guidelines sentence was warranted in 

this case. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

Nguyen also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The 

district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 

U.S. at 51. Nguyen has not shown that the disparity between his sentence and that 

of his co-defendant is unwarranted. See United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2009) (no unwarranted sentencing disparity where defendants are 

not similarly situated). 

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:22-cr-20472-PCH/Becerra

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

RUPESHKUMAR DINESHBHAI PATEL,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING R&R AND ADJUDICATING DEFENDANT 

GUILTY

THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra’s 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on Change of Plea [ECF No. 15], which was entered on 

October 18, 2022. In the R&R, Judge Becerra found that the Defendant, Rupeshkumar Dineshbhai 

Patel, freely and voluntarily entered a plea of guilty as to Count I of the Information, which charges 

Defendant with False Statement to a Federal Agency in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2).

Magistrate Judge Becerra recommends that this Court accept Defendant’s guilty plea, that 

Defendant be adjudicated guilty of Count I, and that a sentencing hearing be conducted for final 

disposition of this matter. The Court has reviewed Judge Becerra’s R&R, no objections have been 

filed, and the Court has been advised that no objections will be filed. Therefore, based on a de 

novo review of the evidence presented, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that (1) Magistrate Judge Becerra’s R&R on Change of 

Plea is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED in its entirety; (2) the Court accepts Defendant’s plea of 

guilty, and Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty as to Count I of the Superseding Information; and 

Case 1:22-cr-20472-PCH Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2022 Page 1 of 2
(3) a sentencing hearing before the Honorable Paul C. Huck is set for Friday, October 21, 2022, 

at 10:30 AM. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida on October 21, 2022.

PAUL C. HUCK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies provided to: 

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra

Counsel of record 

Case 1:22-cr-20472-PCH Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/24/2022 Page 2 of 2