alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

# Foreign Trade

Skip top of page navigation

###### You are here: Census.gov › Business & Industry ›Foreign Trade › U.S. International Trade Data

                - Main
                - About
                - Data
                - Outreach
                - AES
                - Regulations
                - Reference
                - Definitions
                - Schedule B
                - FAQs

### More DATA

                          - Trade Highlights
                          - Balance by Partner Country
                          - Country/Product Trade
                          - State/Metropolitan Data
                          - Historical Series
                          - Notices and Corrections
                          - Related Party Trade
                          - Press Releases
                          - Data Products

### Important Links

                          - Global Reach Blog
                          - Newsletters
                          - ACE AESDirect
                          Related Sites- Business and Industry
- Briefing Room
- North American Industry                Classification System (NAICS)
Economic Indicator Database
                          Textile Concordance - Monthly SubscriptionDownload a file- Click on the appropriate month below to download your file.
-  If you are having technical difficulties or need help, feel free to email us at ftd.data.dissemination@census.gov or call 301-763-2311 for immediate assistance.
- Record	      layouts of the files are  available	      online .
Select Statistical Month:- January 2017   (Available on March 7, 2017)
- February 2017    (Available on April 4, 2017) 
- March 2017    (Available on May 4, 2017)
- April 2017    (Available on June 2, 2017)
- May 2017   (Available on July 6, 2017)
- June 2017   (Available on August 4, 2017)
- July 2017   (Available on September 6, 2017)
- August 2017    (Available on October 5, 2017)
- September 2017    (Available on November 3, 2017)
- October 2017   (Available on December 5, 2017)
- November 2017   (Available on January 5, 2018)
- December 2017    (Available on February 6, 2018)

                          Export Training
Collection of videos to enhance export training.

Spanish Language Webinars 2020-2021 (Seminarios en Línea en Español 2020-2021)
2017 And Prior Year Webinars Archive.
Upcoming Outreach Activities
Upcoming Outreach Activities
Contact Us
				Contact the International Trade Macro Analysis Branch: Email us! or use our feedback form!

                  Call us: (301)763-2311 or 1-800-549-0595 option 4			  
CONNECT WITH US**********- Information Quality
- Data Linkage Infrastructure
- Data Protection and Privacy Policy
- Accessibility
- FOIA
- Inspector General
- No FEAR Act
- U.S. Department of Commerce
- USA.gov

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
✕Is this page helpful?YesNo✕NO THANKS255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached✕Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions?  Source: U.S. Census Bureau | Foreign Trade |  ftdwebmaster@census.gov |     Last Revised:  June 17, 2022
----

Action brought on 26 March 2004 by Giuseppe Caló against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-118/04)

(2004/C 118/101)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 March 2004 by Giuseppe Caló, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

Pleas and main arguments

The applicant in the present case challenges the decision by the appointing authority to re-assign him, and four other directors of the DG ESTAT, together with his post, to the duties of principal adviser to the Director General of the directorate general to which he is assigned, as well as the decision to initiate the procedure for filling the posts for directors of the directorates ESTAT/B, ESTAT/C, ESTAT/D, ESTAT/E and ESTAT/F, on the basis of Article 29(1)(a) and (c) and Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations.

Those decisions were adopted following the establishment of irregularities within EUROSTAT.

In support of his claims the applicant pleads:

Finally, the contested decisions undermine the applicant's professional reputation and dignity.

----
§ 665.7 Certification of compliance. ( a ) In each application to FTA for the purchase or lease of any new bus model, or any bus model with a major change in configuration or components to be acquired or leased with funds obligated by the FTA, the recipient shall certify that the bus was tested at the Bus Testing Facility and that the bus received a passing test score as required in this part. The recipient shall receive the appropriate full Bus Testing Report and any applicable partial testing report(s) before final acceptance of the first vehicle.
( b ) In dealing with a bus manufacturer or dealer, the recipient shall be responsible for determining whether a vehicle to be acquired requires full testing or partial testing or has already satisfied the requirements of this part. A bus manufacturer or recipient may request guidance from FTA.
From: dgamradt [mailto:dgamradt@cisco.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:20 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

To Whom it May Concern‐ 

In regards to this issue, I believe it is up to each individual to manage their own retirement

assets and distribution of same.  These are privately funded vehicles, contributed to voluntarily

and matched at times by Corporations.

The US Government and Department of Labor have no rights to get involved in the

management, investment or distribution of these assets beyond the tax code.

Regards,

Derek Gamradt

12 Windemere

Bentonville, AR 72712
#### Henry Lindsley, *Appellant, v.*John Vandewarker, Respondent.—

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Boardman, J.
#### § 368.8T Appeals.

An applicant has the right to appeal denial of the application. The appeal must be in writing and specify in detail why the agency's decision to deny the application was wrong. The appeal must be filed with FMCSA, ATTN: § 368.8 Appeal, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, within 20 days of the date of the letter denying the application. The decision will be the final agency order.

[82 FR 5304, Jan. 17, 2017, as amended at 86 FR 57068, Oct. 14, 2021]
#### § 392.12 Highway-rail crossings; safe clearance.

No driver of a commercial motor vehicle shall drive onto a highway-rail grade crossing without having sufficient space to drive completely through the crossing without stopping.

[78 FR 58923, Sept. 25, 2013]
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the annual report of AmBase Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard A. Bianco, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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:  March 30, 2011                                                                              /s/ Richard A. Bianco


Richard A. Bianco


Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer


AmBase Corporation
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 28, 2013

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

FRANCISCO ADAN LOPEZ,

Defendant–Appellant.

No. 13-2045

(D.C. Nos. 2:12-CV-01035-RB-LFG and

2:11-CR-01163-RB-2)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Appellant Fancisco Lopez seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district

court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition. Appellant pled guilty to two

federal drug charges and was sentenced to forty-six months of imprisonment, a

substantial reduction from the sentence he faced without the benefit of the plea

agreement. Appellant then filed his § 2255 petition, claiming (1) he received ineffective

assistance of counsel during the plea negotiations because counsel failed to advise him of

the deportation consequences of pleading guilty and (2) the “plea admonishment

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
[regarding immigration consequences] . . . violate[d] the Fifth Amendment Due Process”

clause (App. at 17) because it contained nothing more than a “‘boilerplate’ advisory”

(App. at 50). 

After reviewing the record, the magistrate judge concluded there was no factual

support for Appellant’s claims. The record, including Appellant’s own statements at the

change of plea hearing, clearly demonstrated that Appellant was indeed informed,

“You’re . . . going to be deported because there is a mandatory deportation provision

because you are pleading to . . . two drug offenses.” (App. at 219.) The magistrate judge

then noted that although Appellant’s “Fifth Amendment claim is unclear,” it appeared to

be “premised on an argument that [his] guilty plea was taken involuntarily,

unintelligently, and unknowingly in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s due process

clause, based on ‘murky’ language in the plea agreement.” (App. at 624.) However,

there was no evidence to support Appellant’s apparent assertion that his plea was not

voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended the

district court deny Appellant’s § 2255 petition. After considering Appellant’s objections,

the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and

denied Appellant’s petition. Appellant now appeals. 

After thoroughly reviewing Appellant’s arguments and the record on appeal, we

conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s decision. See Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Thus, for substantially the same reasons given by

the magistrate judge and the district court, we DENY Appellant’s request for a certificate

-2-
of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge

-3-
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 366 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        March 14, 2002.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2146) to amend title 18 of the United States Code to provide life 
imprisonment for repeat offenders who commit sex offenses against children. The 
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After 
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of 
the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### § 850.1 Purpose.

This part prescribes the joint regulations of the National Transportation Safety Board and the Coast Guard for the investigation of marine casualties.

[47 FR 46089, Oct. 15, 1982]
PAUL R . LEPAGE 

GOVERNOR 

STATE OF MAINE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

May 3, 2011 

David Conroy, Chief 

Air Programs Branch 

U.S. EPA Region I-NE 

5 Post Office Square 

Mail Code: OEP 05-2 

Boston, Ma. 02109-3912 

Enclosed please find for your approval and inclusion into Maine's State Implementation 

Plan (SIP), Chapter 129, Surface Coating Facilities. 

A public comment period was held October 13, 2010 until November 12, 2010 in 

accordance with federal and state administrative requirements . Public notice of the 

hearing was published in newspapers statewide on October 13, 2010. On January 6, 

2011, the Board of Environmental Protection adopted Chapter 129. 

The following administrative materials are enclosed: 

JAMES P. BROOKS 

ACTING COMMISSIONER 

1 . Memorandum to the Board of Environmental Protection requesting a public comment 

period dated September 2, 2010; 

2. Copy of the public notice that appeared in the Kennebec Journal on October 13, 2010; 

3 . Memorandum to the Board of Environmental Protection requesting adoption of the 

rule, dated January 6, 2011 ; 

4 . Chapter 129 Surface Coating Facilities as adopted by the Board of Environmental 

Protection on January 6, 2011 with an effective date of April 16, 2011 ; 

AUGUSTA 

17 STATE HOUSE STATION BANGOR PORTLAND PRESQUE ISLE 

AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0017 106 HOGAN ROAD, SUITE 6 312 CANCO ROAD 1235 CENTRAL DRIVE, SKYWAY PARK (207) 287-7688 FAX: (207) 287-7826 BANGOR, MAINE 04401 PORTLAND, MAINE 04103 PRESQUE ISLE, MAINE 04679-2094 

RAY BLDG., HOSPITAL ST. (207) 941-4570 FAX: (207) 941-4584 (207) 822-6300 FAX: (207) 822-6303 (207) 764-0477 FAX: (207) 760-3143 

web site : www.maine .gov/dep 
5 . Summary of comments and the Department's response; and 

6 . MAPA I form for Chapter 129 which provides certification by the Commissioner that 

a public comment period was held; the Board of Environmental Protection lawfully 

adopted this rule on January 6, 2011 and certification that the Attorney General 

approved the rule as to form and legality. 

Should you have any questions, please contact Carolyn Wheeler at (207) 287-2437. 

Sincerely, 

James P. Brooks 

Acting Commissioner 

Department of Environmental Protection 

Enclosures 

cc: Anne Arnold 

Carolyn Wheeler w/o encl 

SIP file
From: Sharon Beetem [mailto:crewsew@bellsouth.net] 

Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 6:31 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: Regarding RIN 1210-AB33

To whomsoever may be gathering opinions: 

Judging from your past performance in money management, I vehemently oppose the 

idea of you being anywhere near my 401K or any other retirement income I might 

manage to stash away for myself. This is a socialist means to grab more of my hard 

earned money and give it to someone who didn't work for it. 

Thanks, but no thanks 

Sharon Beetem 

Alabaster, AL
#### § 800.21 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to publish special delegations of authority to staff members.

[60 FR 61489, Nov. 30, 1995, as amended at 81 FR 75731, Nov. 1, 2016]
# Ousting ISIS from Al Anbar: The Advise and Assist mission of Task Force Al Asad

/ Published July 31, 2017
AL ASAD AIR BASE, Iraq,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       4,474,618
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,848,940
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,579,070
<PP&E>                                         734,235
<DEPRECIATION>                                  80,757
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,888,141
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,291,156
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,950
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,535,644
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,888,141
<SALES>                                      8,052,063
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,052,063
<CGS>                                        3,610,179
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,610,179
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,392,765
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,075,029
<INCOME-TAX>                                    71,546
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,003,483
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,003,483
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08


</TABLE>
#### Henry W. Sharpless and another, Respondents, v. Walter K. Lits, Appellant.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Opinion by Daniels, J.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2258

YING SONG LIN, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A77-317-130) Submitted: July 18, 2007 Decided: July 27, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fengling Liu, LAW OFFICE OF FENGLING LIU, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, Un ited States Attorney, Neil R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ying Song Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Lin fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Lin cannot meet the higher standard to qualify for withholding of removal. Chen v. INS , 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD MARCUS LEISTIKO,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE &

WAREHOUSE UNION/LOCAL 8; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-36028

D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00604-BR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 21, 2012** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Ronald Marcus Leistiko appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action against the International Longshore & Warehouse Union,

Local 8 (“ILWU”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

FILED

MAR 05 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-36028

novo. Cramer v. Consol. Freightways, Inc., 255 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (en

banc) (preemption); Galindo v. Stoody Co., 793 F.2d 1502, 1508 (9th Cir. 1986)

(statute of limitations). We affirm. 

The district court properly concluded that Leistiko’s claim that he was

wrongfully de-registered from the union was preempted by § 301 of the Labor

Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) because resolution of his claim would

require interpreting labor agreements. See Cramer, 255 F.3d at 693 (state law

claim preempted under § 301 if it would require interpreting a labor agreement).

The district court properly concluded that Leistiko’s claim, as preempted by

§ 301, was barred by the six-month statute of limitations. See Conley v. Int’l Bhd.

of Elec. Workers, Local 639, 810 F.2d 913, 914-15 (9th Cir. 1987) (plaintiff’s

complaint alleging violations of § 301 of the LMRA and state contract law was

subject to the National Labor Relations Act’s six-month statute of limitations

because essence of plaintiff’s complaint was that the union failed to act fairly on

his behalf); Galindo, 793 F.2d at 1509 (limitations period begins to run when

plaintiff knows or should have known of the union’s alleged wrongdoing). 

The district court properly denied Leistiko’s motion to remand to state court

because the ILWU timely removed the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) (notice of

removal must be filed within thirty days after the defendant’s receipt of the
3 10-36028

complaint); D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 974

n.2 (9th Cir. 2004) (applying de novo review to denial of motion to remand).

Leistiko’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
# Rocket Attack Targets Coalition Forces

/ Published April 11, 2023

Apr. 10, 2023

Release Number 20230410-01

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**TAMPA, Fla.**– An ineffective single rocket attack, targeted coalition forces, at Mission Support Site Conoco, northeast Syria, today at 10:51AM Eastern Standard Time (approximately 5:51PM local time in Syria). One additional rocket was found at the attack’s point of origin.

The attack resulted in no injuries or damage to the base or coalition property.

-30-
#### § 835.7 Testimony of former Board employees.

It is not necessary to request Board approval for testimony of a former Board employee, nor is testimony limited to depositions. However, the scope of permissible testimony continues to be constrained by all the limitations set forth in § 835.3 and § 835.4.

[63 FR 71608, Dec. 29, 1998]