alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 46 (Friday, March 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1088]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Amended 
Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, 
March 15, 2007, 7 p.m. to March 16, 2007, 6 p.m., The Radisson 
Governor's Inn, I-40 at Davis Drive, Exit 280, Research Triangle Park, 
NC 27709 which was published in the Federal Register on February 13, 
2007, fr13fe07-60.
    The meeting will be held 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on both days. The meeting 
is closed to the public.

    Dated: March 1, 2001.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-1088 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-07-M
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

bUfaeMttteraf ) 

) A17-02 

AuditDiviwonRecommmriarion ) AgendaDocumoitNo. 1S-51-A 

Memorandum on Mardia Blackburn for ) 

Coqgteu. Inc. ) 

llEkTlFlCATION 

L D^noa C. Brown, zoooiding secretary fin: the Federal Electum Commissioa open 

meeting on December 06,2018, do hereby certify diat fhe Commission decided hy a vote of 4-0 

toqiprovetbaieooinmendBtiaDsinlheAudil Division ReoommeiidationMdDiorBndiim on 

Marsha filaciebuinfbir Congress, lac. (A17-Q2Xcs set finlfa in AgendaDocumeiitl8-51-A, 

except diat the Audit Division he instructed to excise the phrase^''any idephone logs 01^ fiom 

the qipropriate portion of the forthcoming Proposed Final Audit Rqxnt. 

CominiaBionen Hunter, Petersen, Watdier, and Weiiilmifo voted afBtmatively for the 

dedsioiL 

Attest: 

Dale DaynaC. Brown 

Secrctaiy and Cleik of the Commission
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

August 5, 2021

v No. 351789

Washtenaw Circuit Court

MARCUS TYREE LASHAWN WALKER, LC No. 17-000800-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v No. 352198

Washtenaw Circuit Court

RICO MONTEZ CHANDLER, LC No. 19-000073-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: FORT HOOD, P.J., and MARKEY and GLEICHER, JJ.

GLEICHER, J. (concurring)

I concur with the affirmance of both defendants’ convictions. I write separately to suggest 

that the prosecutor’s questioning of defendant Rico Chandler regarding statements made by 

defendant Marcus Walker constituted a violation of the rule announced in Bruton v United States, 

391 US 123; 88 S Ct 1620; 20 L Ed 2d 476 (1968). During defendant Chandler’s crossexamination, the prosecutor specifically and repeatedly referenced defendant Walker’s testimony

that Chandler had shot and killed the victim. This was not only prosecutorial misconduct, as my 

colleagues point out, but also a violation of Chandler’s Confrontation Clause rights. To his great 

credit, the assistant prosecuting attorney who argued this case conceded that a Bruton error had 

been committed.

The prosecution used Walker’s statements against Chandler in an unmistakable manner. 

By asking at the outset of the cross-examination whether Chandler was “present in the courtroom 
-2-

and . . . heard that your very own co-Defendant, Mr. Walker, told the police that you told them 

that you shot and killed Dominque Lee,” the prosecutor introduced Walker’s statement. This was 

an undisguised attempt at an end-run around Bruton, and in my view the error is indistinguishable. 

Chandler’s counsel did not object. I would hold that the use of Walker’s testimony constituted 

plain error and obviously violated Chandler’s Sixth Amendment rights. See United States v 

Powell, 732 F3d 361, 378-379 (CA 5, 2013). 

Nevertheless, the evidence marshalled against Chandler was substantial and compelling. 

Although the introduction of Walker’s statement was plain error and substantially affected the 

fairness of the proceedings, I am convinced that the violation of Chandler’s constitutional right 

was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Even absent the Bruton error, no reasonable probability 

exists that Chandler would have been acquitted. On this basis, I concur with the majority’s 

resolution of Chandler’s appellate arguments.

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
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.                  

###### Broadcasting Board of Governors

# Date and Time:

 Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m.

# Place:

Cohen Building, Room 3360, 330 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20237.

# Closed Meeting:

The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will meet in a special session to review and discuss budgetary issues relating to U.S. Government-funded non-military international broadcasting. This meeting is closed because if open it likely would either disclose matters that would be properly classified to be kept secret in the interest of foreign policy under the appropriate executive order (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(1)) or would disclose information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(9)(B)) In addition, part of the discussion will relate solely to the internal personnel and organizational issues of the BBG or the International Broadcasting Bureau. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(2)and (6))

# Contact Person for More Information:

Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact Carol Booker at (202) 203-4545.

Dated: November 29, 2006.

Carol Booker,

Legal Counsel.

[FR Doc. 06-9536 Filed 11-31-06; 10:10 am]

BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
§ 2105.5 How will fee information affect the processing of your request? ( a ) Your request should state that you will pay all fees associated with processing the request, that you will pay fees up to a specified amount, and/or that you are seeking a fee waiver.
( b ) If the Agency anticipates that the fees for processing the request will exceed the amount you have agreed to pay, or if you did not agree in writing to pay processing fees or request a fee waiver and the Agency anticipates the processing costs will exceed $50 (*see* § 2105.35(g)) or will exceed your entitlements (*see* § 2105.37), the Agency will notify you: ( 1 ) Of the estimated processing fees;
( 2 ) Of its need for either an advance payment (*see* § 2105.48) or your written assurance that you will pay the anticipated fees (or fees up to a specified amount); and
( 3 ) That it will not be able to fully comply with your request unless you provide a fee waiver request and/or the requested written assurance or advance payment.
( c ) If the Agency does not receive a written response from you within 20 workdays after requesting the information in paragraph (b) of this section, it will presume that you are no longer interested in the records and will close the file on the request.
( d ) If you are seeking a fee waiver, your request must include a justification that addresses and meets the criteria in §§ 2105.43 and 2105.46. Failure to provide sufficient justification will result in a denial of the fee waiver request. If you are seeking a fee waiver, you may also indicate the amount you are willing to pay if the fee waiver is denied. This allows the Agency to process the request for records while it considers your fee waiver request.
( e ) If you are required to pay a fee and it is later determined on appeal that you were entitled to a full or partial fee waiver, you will receive an appropriate refund.
• 

~~ 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: 

FROM: 

Patricia C. Orrock 

Chief Compliance Officer 

Thomas E. Hintermister 

Assistant Staff Director 

Audit Division 

Adav Notift,v' 

Acting Associate General Counsel 

Policy Division 

Lorenzo Holloway ~ -

Assistant General Counsel 

Compliance Advice 

Margaret J. Forman A ,;t.. -fr'l 'J!1 j}. ~ 

Attorney 

APR 2.8 20li 

SUBJECT: Proposed Interim Audit Report on the Kansas Democratic Party (LRA 1022) 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed the proposed Interim Audit Report 

("proposed JAR") on the Kansas Democratic Party. The proposed IAR contains four findings: 

Misstatement of Financial Activity (Finding I), Recordkeeping for Employees (Finding 2), 

Reporting of Debts and Obligations (Finding 3), and Levin Funds Reporting and Recordkeeping 

(Finding 4 ). 1 We concur with the findings. If you have any questions, please contact Margaret J. 

Forman, the attorney assigned to this audit. 

1 We recommend that the Commission consider this document in Executive Session because the 

Commission may eventually decide to pursue an investigation of matters contained in the proposed IAR. 

11 C.F.R. §§ 2.4(a) and (b)(6).
IIA 

Calendar No. 77 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 18 

Disapproving of the rule submitted by the Department of Homeland Security 

relating to ‘‘Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 8, 2023 

Mr. MARSHALL (for himself, Mr. BRAUN, Mr. BUDD, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. CRUZ, 

Mr. HAGERTY, Mr. HAWLEY, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mr. LEE, Mr. RISCH, 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida, Mr. CASSIDY, and Ms. LUMMIS) introduced the 

following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

MARCH 16, 2023 

Committee discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), and placed 

on the calendar 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving of the rule submitted by the Department of 

Homeland Security relating to ‘‘Public Charge Ground 

of Inadmissibility’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the final rule submitted by the 

4 Department of Homeland Security relating to ‘‘Public 

5 Charge Ground of Inadmissibility’’ (87 Fed. Reg. 55472 


SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
2 

SJ 18 PCS 

1 (September 9, 2022)), and such rule shall have no force 

2 or effect. 


SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS

SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 77 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 18 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving of the rule submitted by the DepartCharge Ground of Inadmissibility’’. ment of Homeland Security relating to ‘‘Public 

MARCH 16, 2023 

Committee discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

802(c), and placed on the calendar 


SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ATEL Capital Equipment Fund VIII, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, Managing Member of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §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; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: November 11, 2008



|                                                                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi                                                                                                            
|Paritosh K. Choksi                                                                                                                
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC (Managing Member)

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.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 2, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 132649 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J. EDWARD KLOIAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 132649 COA: 267033 Wayne CC: 05-514737-NM MICHAEL ALAN SCHWARTZ and SCHWARTZ, KELLY & OLTARZ-SCHWARTZ, P.C., Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 12, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0425 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 2, 2007

Clerk
EXHIBIT 33.5

          Report on Assessment with Compliance with Servicing Criteria
                           for Asset-Backed Securities
                               (Bank of New York)

           ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA

The Bank of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. (collectively,
the "Company") provides this platform-level assessment of compliance with the
servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Management has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable
in regards to the following servicing platform for the following period:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential
mortgage-backed securities and other mortgage-related asset-backed securities
issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kind transactions issued prior to
January 1, 2006) for which the Company provides trustee, securities
administration, paying agent or custodial services. The platform includes like
kind transactions for which the Company provided trustee, securities
administrator, paying agent or custodial services as a result of the Company's
acquisition as of October 1, 2006 of portions of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s
corporate trust business, including structured finance agency and trust
transactions.

Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d),
to the extent required by the related transaction agreements as to any
transaction, except for the following criteria: 1122 (d) (1)(ii), (iii), (iv),
(4) (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii).

Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006.

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the following
assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

- The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
  Servicing Criteria.

- The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

- As of December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material
  compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued
an attestation report with respect to the Company's foregoing assessment of
compliance.

     The Bank of New York                     The Bank of New York
     The Bank of New York Trust               The Bank of New York Trust
            Company, N.A.                            Company, N.A.

     By: /s/ Robert L. Griffin                By: /s/ Patrick J. Tadie
         ------------------                       ------------------
         Robert L. Griffin                        Patrick J. Tadie
         Authorized Signer                        Authorized Signer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 400.147 Priority in provision of services. A State must plan its social service program and allocate its social service funds in such a manner that services are provided to refugees in the following order of priority, except in certain individual extreme circumstances: ( a ) All newly arriving refugees during their first year in the U.S., who apply for services;
( b ) Refugees who are receiving cash assistance;
( c ) Unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash assistance; and
( d ) Employed refugees in need of services to retain employment or to attain economic independence.
[54 FR 5481, Feb. 3, 1989, as amended at 60 FR 33603, June 28, 1995]
Exhibit
      32.2





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**




**PURSUANT
      TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION 906
      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 (18 U.S.C. 350),


the
      undersigned, Robert Rankin, Chief Financial Officer of House of Taylor Jewelry,
      Inc. (the "Company") has executed this certification in connection with the
      filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the
      "Report").





The
      undersigned certifies that: (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 operation of the Company.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
      10 th day of
      August 2007.







HOUSE
                  OF TAYLOR JEWELRY, INC./s/
                  Robert Rankin-----------------------------Name:
                  Robert RankinTitle:
                  Chief Financial
                  Office
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 04-625 

________________________________________________________________________ 

COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION 

 Agreement between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and MICRONESIA 

Amending the Compact of 

Free Association of October 1, 1982, 

As Amended 

Signed at Palikir May 14, 2003 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 MICRONESIA 

 

 Compact of Free Association 

 Agreement amending the Compact of Free Association, 

 of October 1, 1982, as amended. 

 Signed at Palikir May 14, 2003; 

 Entered into force June 25, 2004.
§ 2506.34 Under what conditions will the Corporation make a refund of amounts collected by salary offset? ( a ) If the Corporation is the creditor agency, it will promptly refund any amount deducted under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 5514, when: ( 1 ) The debt is waived or all or part of the funds deducted are otherwise found not to be owed (unless expressly prohibited by statute or regulation); or
( 2 ) An administrative or judicial order directs the Corporation to make a refund.
( b ) Unless required or permitted by law or contract, refunds under this section will not bear interest.
§ 16.8 The next step in the appeal process: Preparation of an appeal file and written argument. Except in expedited cases (generally those of $25,000 or less; see § 16.12 for details), the appellant and the respondent each participate in developing an appeal file for the Board to review. Each also submits written argument in support of its position. The responsibilities of each are as follows: ( a ) *The appellant's responsibility.* Within 30 days after receiving the acknowledgment of the appeal, the appellant shall submit the following to the Board (with a copy to the respondent): ( 1 ) An appeal file containing the documents supporting the claim, tabbed and organized chronologically and accompanied by an indexed list identifying each document. The appellant should include only those documents which are important to the Board's decision on the issues in the case.
( 2 ) A written statement of the appellant's argument concerning why the respondent's final decision is wrong (appellant's brief).
( b ) *The respondent's responsibility.* Within 30 days after receiving the appellant's submission under paragraph (a) of this section, the respondent shall submit the following to the Board (with a copy to the appellant): ( 1 ) A supplement to the appeal file containing any additional documents supporting the respondent's position, organized and indexed as indicated under paragraph (a) of this section. The respondent should avoid submitting duplicates of documents submitted by the appellant.
( 2 ) A written statement (respondent's brief) responding to the appellant's brief.
( c ) *The appellant's reply.* Within 15 days after receiving the respondent's submission, the appellant may submit a short reply. The appellant should avoid repeating arguments already made.
( d ) *Cooperative efforts.* Whenever possible, the parties should try to develop a joint appeal file, agree to preparation of the file by one of them, agree to facts to eliminate the need for some documents, or agree that one party will submit documents identified by the other.
( e ) *Voluminous documentation.* Where submission of all relevant documents would lead to a voluminous appeal file (for example where review of a disputed audit finding of inadequate documentation might involve thousands of receipts), the Board will consult with the parties about how to reduce the size of the file.