alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 4334-017]

                    On September 29, 2023, EONY Generation Limited submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a copy of its application for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification filed with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (New York DEC), in conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6 and section 4.34(b)(5) of the Commission's regulations,[1]                                          we hereby notify the New York DEC of the following:                

*Date of Receipt of the Certification Request:*                     September 26, 2023.                

*Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request:*                     One year (September 26, 2024).                

If New York DEC fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the agency certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

Dated: October 4, 2023.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             18 CFR 4.34(b)(5).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2023-22478 Filed 10-11-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INVOKE RULE 

OF SPECIALTY- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY C. ROSENAU,

Defendant.

CASE NO. CR06-157MJP

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

INVOKE RULE OF SPECIALTY

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion to invoke the rule of specialty

(Dkt. No. 33). Having reviewed the motion, the Government’s consolidated response (Dkt. No.

36), and all supporting papers, the Court DENIES Defendant’s request to invoke the rule of 

specialty.

The doctrine of specialty prohibits the requesting nation from prosecuting the extradited 

individual for any offense other than that for which the surrendering state agreed to extradite. 

United States v. VanCauwenberghe, 827 F.2d 424, 428 (9th Cir. 1987), cert.denied, 484 U.S. 

1042 (1988). The Court looks to the language of the applicable treaty to determine the protection 

an extradited person is afforded. 

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 42 Filed 10/06/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INVOKE RULE 

OF SPECIALTY- 2

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

The treaty with Canada, pursuant to which Defendant was extradited, provides that 

persons “shall not be detained, tried or punished in the territory of the requesting State for an 

offense other than that for which extradition has been granted.” Treaty on Extradition between 

the United States of America and Canada, March 22, 1976, U.S.-Can., art. 12, 27 U.S.T. 983.

The test of when a trial is for a separate offense is not “some technical refinement of local law, 

but whether the extraditing country would consider the offense actually tried ‘separate.’” United 

States v. Andonian, 29 F.3d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). The government is 

not required, under the auspices of specialty, to try a defendant on the same evidence that was 

presented to the surrendering state, so long as it satisfies the requirement that trial is for the same 

offenses arising out of the same allegations of fact. Id. at 1438. The Court finds that Defendant 

has made no showing that the Government attempts to prosecute Defendant for anything other 

than the three charges for which he was extradited. The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to 

invoke the rule of specialty. 

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

Dated this 6th day of October, 2011.

A

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 42 Filed 10/06/11 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 2 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 1 of 2

Rinde v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Doc. 2

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00556-TSZ Document 2 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 2 of 2
Before the First Division,

October 18, 1966

No. P66/273. —

#### Arthur J. Humphreys *v.*United States, protests 65/16130, etc. (Seattle).

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A” covered by the foregoing protests consist of cedar shorts similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Border Brokerage Co. et al.*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 204, C.D. 2461); that the items of merchandise marked “B” covered by the foregoing protests consist of 2-piece cedar shorts in excess of 24 inches in width; and that under the principles of *Clarence S. Holmes et al.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 111, C.D. 2161), edge glued maple wood in excess of lumber widths of 9 inches was held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1558, the claims of the plaintiff were sustained. *P. W. Drittler*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 227, Abstract 68213) and *Arthur J. Humphreys*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 293, C.D. 2791, followed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-27-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-26-2000
<CASH>                                           1,062
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      263
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     28,252
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,537
<PP&E>                                          26,419
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,371
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,643
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,371
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,983
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    39,643
<SALES>                                          9,959
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,959
<CGS>                                            5,510
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,510
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 284
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,935)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        50
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,985)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,985)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.23)




</TABLE>
No. 54414.

#### Wo Kee & Co. and Yick Fung Co. *v.*United States,

protests 72656-K and 825146-G (San Francisco and Seattle).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC Document 35 Filed 11/20/06 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC Document 35 Filed 11/20/06 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC Document 35 Filed 11/20/06 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC Document 35 Filed 11/20/06 Page 4 of 4
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Carr, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 483]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.), rendered June 23, 1993, convicting him of criminal *522possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree, and leaving the scene of an accident, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt.

Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, including issues involving the credibility of eyewitness identification testimony, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Caban,*120 AD2d 603). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Balletta and Hart, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal C 170/9 Ju

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 170 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 489 July 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 170

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 489 July 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 170/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 170/2 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (1) | 2 |
| 2005/C 170/3 | Notice of termination of the safeguard investigation concerning imports of certain textile products originating in the People's Republic of China | 9 |
| 2005/C 170/4 | Extension of the mandate of the members of the Professional Chamber of the Enterprise Policy Group | 11 |
| 2005/C 170/5 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3838 — Avid/Pinnacle) (1) | 13 |
| 2005/C 170/6 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3856 — Boeing/Lockheed Martin/United Launch Alliance JV) (1) | 14 |
| 2005/C 170/7 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3693 — TPV/Philips (Monitors)) (1) | 15 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 170/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 170/2

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (1)

2

2005/C 170/3

Notice of termination of the safeguard investigation concerning imports of certain textile products originating in the People's Republic of China

9

2005/C 170/4

Extension of the mandate of the members of the Professional Chamber of the Enterprise Policy Group

11

2005/C 170/5

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3838 — Avid/Pinnacle) (1)

13

2005/C 170/6

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3856 — Boeing/Lockheed Martin/United Launch Alliance JV) (1)

14

2005/C 170/7

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3693 — TPV/Philips (Monitors)) (1)

15

---

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 170/8 | Call for proposals — EAC22/2005 — Tempus III: Guide for Applicants 2005/2006 | 16 |
| 2005/C 170/9 | Call for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’ | 18 |

III   Notices

Commission

2005/C 170/8

Call for proposals — EAC22/2005 — Tempus III: Guide for Applicants 2005/2006

16

2005/C 170/9

Call for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’

18

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
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 Bethesda C0801, Inc., (the “Company”), on
Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) pursuant to the
requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63
of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C.§ 1350), David M. McNamee,
the President, principal executive officer and principal financial officer of
the Company, hereby certifies that, to the best of my knowledge:




1. The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and




2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period
covered by the Periodic Report.





Date:
      September 28, 2009
              By:
              /s/ David M. McNameeDavid
      M. McNameePresident
      (Principal Executive Officer
                and
      Principal Financial Officer)




* This
certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before
or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 91

Expressing the sense of Congress that a postage stamp should be issued

to commemorate the life of George Washington and his contributions

to the Nation.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 24, 1998

Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. ROBB, and Mr. GRAHAM) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that a postage stamp

should be issued to commemorate the life of George

Washington and his contributions to the Nation.

Whereas 1999 marks the 200th anniversary of the death of

George Washington;

Whereas George Washington’s extraordinary virtue commanded the respect of America’s early leaders, who called

on him to preside over the framing of the Constitution;

Whereas George Washington was an indispensable figure in

the founding of our Nation, and served as our country’s

first commander in chief and President with unparalleled

distinction;
2

•SCON 91 IS

Whereas all Americans remain indebted to George Washington for the liberties we enjoy today;

Whereas the death of George Washington on December 14,

1799, marked the first instance of national mourning in

this country;

Whereas George Washington’s tremendous accomplishments

over the course of a remarkable lifetime are studied and

admired in this Nation and around the world; and

Whereas issuing a postage stamp to honor the life and contributions of George Washington, ‘‘The Father of Our

Country’’, is proper and fitting: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—

3 (1) a postage stamp should be issued by the

4 United States Postal Service to commemorate the

5 life of George Washington and his contributions to

6 the Nation; and

7 (2) the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee

8 should recommend to the Postmaster General that

9 such a postage stamp be issued.

Æ
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 490 Filed 01/26/11 Page 1 of 11
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 490 Filed 01/26/11 Page 2 of 11
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 490 Filed 01/26/11 Page 3 of 11
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 490 Filed 01/26/11 Page 4 of 11
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 490 Filed 01/26/11 Page 5 of 11
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 490 Filed 01/26/11 Page 6 of 11
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 490 Filed 01/26/11 Page 7 of 11
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 490 Filed 01/26/11 Page 8 of 11
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 490 Filed 01/26/11 Page 9 of 11
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 490 Filed 01/26/11 Page 10 of 11
Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 490 Filed 01/26/11 Page 11 of 11
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 quarterly report of Berman Center, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned,
      in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(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.







/s/ Laura
      A.
      Berman





Name: 
      Laura A. Berman, LCSW, PHD.


Title:  Chief
      Executive Officer and President


(Principal
      Executive Officer)






/s/ Carlos
      Bernal





Name:  Carlos
      Bernal


Title:  Chief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)




August
      20, 2007




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

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 143 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 143

 To authorize the printing of a revised edition of the Senate Election 
                             Law Guidebook.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 5, 1997

     Mr. Warner (for himself and Mr. Ford) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To authorize the printing of a revised edition of the Senate Election 
                             Law Guidebook.

    Resolved, That the Committee on Rules and Administration is 
directed to prepare a revised edition of the Senate Election Law 
Guidebook, Senate Document 104-12, and that such document shall be 
printed as a Senate document.
    Sec. 2. There shall be printed 600 additional copies of the 
document specified in section 1 of this resolution for the use of the 
Committee on Rules and Administration.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 12.2**CERTIFICATION OF OUR CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER3**  I, Daniel Mingdong Wu, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Focus Media Holding Limited; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (c) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;  (d) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisannual report based on such evaluation; and  (e) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual reportthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function): (f) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal controls over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (g) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.Date: September 25, 2007         By: