alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 64464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20280]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION


Appointment of Individuals To Serve as Members of the Performance 
Review Board

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Appointment of individuals to serve as members of performance 
review board.

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

DATES: Applicable Date: September 13, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Mozie, Director of Human 
Resources, or Ronald Johnson, Deputy Director of Human Resources, U.S. 
International Trade Commission (202) 205-2651.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Chairman of the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has appointed the following individuals to serve on the 
Commission's Performance Review Board (PRB):

Chair of the PRB: Commissioner Amy Karpel
Vice-Chair of the PRB: Commissioner Randolph Stayin
Member--John Ascienzo
Member--Dominic Bianchi
Member--Nannette Christ
Member--Catherine DeFilippo
Member--Katie Higginbothom
Member--Margaret Macdonald
Member--William Powers
Member--Keith Vaughn

    This notice is published in the Federal Register pursuant to the 
requirement of 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). Hearing impaired individuals are 
advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting 
our TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    By order of the Chairman.

    Issued: September 14, 2023.
Katherine Hiner,
Supervisory Attorney.
[FR Doc. 2023-20280 Filed 9-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Before the First Division,

March 15, 1962

No. 66566.

#### Eugenio Mireles *v.*United States,

protest 312305-K (Daredo).

Mollison, Judge:

This case involves the classification of crates, imported in knocked-down or unassembled condition, which, after importation and assembly, were designed to be and actually were used as shipping containers for cantaloupes. They were assessed with duty by the collector of customs at the rate of 16% per centum ad valorem under the provision in paragraph 412, Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Presidential proclamation relating to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T.D. 51802, for—

> Manufactures of wood * * * not specially provided for:

> * * * crates * * * and similar containers, and shooks for making any such containers.

They are claimed to be dutiable at the rate of 3% per centum ad valorem under the provisions of paragraph 407 of the said act, as modified by the Presidential proclamation relating to the Torquay protocol to the general agreement, T.D. 52739, for—

> * * * packing-box shooks, of wood, not specially provided for * * *.

The evidence is clear and uncontroverted that the articles at bar are shooks for cantaloupe crates. Counsel for the plaintiff has, in the brief filed in his behalf, offered, as an aid to the court, numerous dictionary definitions of the terms “packing box,” “packing case,” “box,” and “crate,” for the purpose of establishing that a crate is a kind of packing box. Counsel for the defendant has cited numerous decisions of this and our appellate court to the effect that crates and shooks for crates have been judicially determined not to be embraced within the provisions of paragraph 407 or its predecessors relating to packing boxes or shooks therefor. Counsel for the plaintiff contends that these decisions are distinguishable or not controlling for various reasons.

We think that it is unnecessary for us at this time to determine whether a crate is or is not a packing box. If it is not, decision must be in favor of the defendant. If it is, the question presented is a simple one of relative specificity. Therefore, assuming, without deciding, that crates are packing boxes, the question is whether the provision in paragraph 412, as modified by T.D. 51802, for shooks for crates is relatively more specific in its application to the merchandise at bar than the provision in paragraph 407, as modified by T.D. 52739, for shooks for packing boxes. Both provisions are modified by a “not specially provided for” clause, and there is nothing manifest about either provision which indicates a legislative intent that one should control over the other.

Assuming, therefore, that a crate is a specific kind of a packing box, as plaintiff claims, it would seem to be unquestionable that the provision for shooks for crates is more narrowly descriptive of the merchandise at bar than the provision for shooks for packing boxes. Consequently, whether crates are or are not packing boxes, judgment must be in favor of the defendant.

The protest claim is, therefore, overruled, and judgment will issue accordingly.
Exhibit
23.1





LAKE
& ASSOCIATES, CPA’s LLC





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the use, in the report on Form 10-K of Alchemical Capital Corp.
(A Development Stage Company), of our report dated March 28, 2009 on our audit
of the financial statements of Alchemical Capital Corp. (A Development Stage
Company) as of December 31, 2008, and the related statement of operations,
shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2008, from
inception on June 16, 2008 through December 31, 2008, and the reference to us
under the caption “Experts.”





/s/Lake
& Associates, CPA’s LLC





Lake
& Associates, CPA’s LLC


Boca
Raton, Florida


March 30,
2009
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00303-CV

El Pistolon II, Ltd.

v.

Levinson Alcoser Associates, L.P. and Levinson Associates, Inc.

On Appeal from the

398th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-1976-18-I

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED 

and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the appeal 

are adjudged against appellees.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 13, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statements of Income and the Consolidated Balance
Sheets of Catherines Stores Corporation for the quarter ended November 1, 1997
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000875194
<NAME> CATHERINES STORES CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              FEB-2-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                NOV-1-1997
<CASH>                                           3,315
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,562
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     59,050
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,677
<PP&E>                                          66,583
<DEPRECIATION>                                (31,270)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,299
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,228
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,571
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,299
<SALES>                                        209,302
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               209,302
<CGS>                                          145,442
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  145,442
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                57,869
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,983
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,043
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,940
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,940
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.40
        

</TABLE>
No. 58709.

protest 236467-K (New York).

#### Hensel, Bruckmann *&*Lorbacher, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
No. P66/256. —

#### B. Westergaard & Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protest 65/19140 (New York).

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of potato starch similar in all material respects to that the subject of *R. U. Delapenha & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. *261,*Abstract 68309), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Santa Monica Airport

Office of the Director

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South

Suite 3

Santa Monica, CA 90405

(310) 458-8591

FPJ<(310) 572-4495

City of

Santa Monica<lll

April 14, 2008

AIR GROUP INC

7426 HAYVENHURST AVE

VAN NUYS CA 91406-2803

Re: Santa Monica Airport - Implementation of Ban on Category C and D Aircraft.

Dear Santa Monica Airport User:

On March 25, 2008 the Santa Monica City Council adopted an ordinance restricting aircraft

operations at the Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO) to aircraft designated by the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as Category A and B aircraft. The Santa Monica·

Airport is designed to handle such aircraft, which have approach speeds of less than 121

knots. Operations by Category C and D aircraft are prohibited by the ordinance.

The new ordinance will go into effect on April 24, 2008, after which only aircraft in the FAA

designated A & B categories will be allowed to operate at SMO. Attached for your reference

is a table explaining FAA aircraft approach speed categories. Also you can visit the

following FAA link to determine which category your aircraft falls under:

http://www.faa.gov/airports airtraffic/airports/construction/aircraft char database/.

Note: In general, the new ordinance provides that, except in the case of a bona fide

emergency, no person operating a category C or 0 aircraft, as defined by

FAA's standards, shall land or depart from the Santa Monica Municipal Airport

after April 23, 2008. Penalties for violation of the Ordinance include

misdemeanor prosecution with punlshment of a fine not greater than One

Thousand Dollars ($1,000) or imprisonment in the County Jail for not more than

six months, or both. The Ordinance is available for vieWing at www.smgov.net

or www.santamonicaairport.org (airport website).

Users of Santa Monica Airport, who utilize fractional share aircraft, may want to consult with

their fractional share operators. As noted on their websites, the following fractional

operators allow their participants to change to aircraft in compliant categories:

Netjets: http://www.netjets.comlThe%20NetJets%20Program/netjetsprogram overview.asp

Flexjet: http://www.f1exjet.comlhome.html; and

Flight Options: http://www.fIightoptions.com/aboutoverview.html

Over Please

EXHIBIT

I Ci9
I also advise that you periodically check the Santa Monica Airport's internet site at

www.santamonicaairport.org for updates. . '

A

incere,

~

Robert , nmborn

Air it Director

Santa Monica Airport

FAA Designated Approach Categories

According to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, an aircraft's approach

category is based upon 1.3 times its stall speed at the aircraft's maximum certificated

weight.

The five approach categories used are as follows:

Category A: Speed less than 91 knots

Category B: Speed 91 knots or more but less thantzt knots

Category C: Speed 121 knots or morel but less than 141 knots

Category D: Speed 141 knots or more, but less than 166 knots

Category E: Speed greater than 166 knots
From: imm.levy@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:08:49 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Marie levy

Baton Rouge, LA 70817
|   | (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: April 30, 2015     | By:    | /s/ Jo Webber      |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                                    |   | Jo Webber          |   |
|                                    |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |

----
From: thesssearls@Hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:42:14 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Sharon Searls

Silver Bay, MN 55614
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-3178

___________________________

Kevin Tharp,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CitiMortgage, Inc.,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee.

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

 ____________

 Submitted: June 2, 2020

Filed: June 5, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Tharp appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his pro se action against

CitiMortgage, Inc. Upon careful de novo review, we affirm. We agree that Tharp

1The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota.
failed to state a claim regarding interference with his right to redemption, as he did

not plead facts sufficient for the court to infer that CitiMortgage was liable for any

wrongdoing. See Minn. Stat. § 580.23; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

We also agree that Tharp’s claims arising under the Real Estate Settlement

Procedures Act, and his state law claims for fraud and intentional infliction of

emotional distress, were time-barred. See 12 U.S.C. § 2614; Minn. Stat. §§ 541.05,

541.07. Finally, we deny the request in Tharp’s reply brief to supplement the record

on appeal. See Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 988 F.2d 61, 63 (8th

Cir. 1993). 

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

-2-
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 6, 2012*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.213 Corporate Equities 1** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Orofino Gold Corp.  (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending May 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Shih Long Ning, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 result of operations of the Company.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of May 31, 2012.  By:/s/ Shi Long NingShi Long Ning
Chief Executive Officer, President, acting Chief
Financial Officer, acting Principal Accounting
Officer and Director
No. 60544.

#### Gallagher & Ascher Company *v.*United States,

protest 296743-K/ 8475 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed.
From: lou52_1@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:25:59 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Ellen Schwartz

Ansonia, CT 06401
No. 60564.

#### Rootes Motors, Incorporated, and Vandegrift Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 268945-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case, the court found nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the decision of the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.