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 State

          - [Public Notice: 12228]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with their foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “The Heart of Zen” at the Asian Art Museum, San Francisco, California, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.                

Nicole L. Elkon,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2023-22999 Filed 10-17-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 68

To adjourn sine die the 1st session of the 105th Congress

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 13, 1997

Mr. LOTT submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was considered

and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To adjourn sine die the 1st session of the 105th Congress

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, November 13, 1997, or Friday, No4 vember 14, 1997, on a motion offered pursuant to this

5 concurrent resolution by the Majority Leader or his des6 ignee, it stand adjourned sine die, or until noon on the

7 second day after Members are notified to reassemble pur8 suant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, and that

9 when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, November 13,

10 1997, or Friday, November 14, 1997, on a motion offered

11 pursuant to this concurrent resolution by the Majority

12 Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned sine die, or
2

SCON 68 ATS

1 until noon on the second day after Members are notified

2 to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent res3 olution.

4 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

5 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

6 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead7 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

8 and Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their

9 opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

10 SEC. 3. The Congress declares that clause 5 of rule

11 III of the Rules of the House of Representatives and the

12 order of the Senate of January 7, 1997, authorize for the

13 duration of the One Hundred Fifth Congress the Clerk

14 of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the

15 Senate, respectively: to receive messages from the Presi16 dent during periods when the House and Senate are not

17 in session and thereby preserve until adjournment sine die

18 of the final regular session of the One Hundred Fifth Con19 gress the constitutional prerogative of the House and Sen20 ate to reconsider vetoed measures in light of the objections

21 of the President, since the availability of the Clerk and

22 the Secretary during any earlier adjournment of either

23 House during the current Congress does not prevent the

24 return by the President of any bill presented to him for

25 approval.
3

SCON 68 ATS

1 SEC. 4. The Clerk of the House of Representatives

2 shall inform the President of the United States of the

3 adoption of this concurrent resolution.

Æ
**EXHIBIT 12.2**

**Certification**

I, Eric Wang Lam Cheung, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of China Mass Media Corp. (the “Company”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company andhave: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

(b) [omitted pursuant to the guidance of Release No. 33-8238 (June 5, 2003), Release No. 33-8392(February 24, 2004), Release No. 33-8545 (March 2, 2005) and Release No. 33-8760 (December 15, 2006)]; 

(c)Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: June 30, 2009
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
   
     We hereby consent to the use in the Prospectus constituting part of this
Amendment No. 2 to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 of SpinCycle, Inc. of
our report dated March 13, 1998 relating to the financial statements of
SpinCycle, Inc., which appears in such prospectus. We also consent to the
reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Prospectus.
    
 
   
                                          /s/  PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
    
 
                                          --------------------------------------
   
                                          PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
    
 
Phoenix, Arizona
   
October 20, 1998
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1692

In re: PATRICK STEPHEN WALSH, a/k/a Patrick Steven Walsh, 

 Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

(No. 8:05-cr-00001-RWT-1)

Submitted: July 17, 2013 Decided: August 13, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Patrick Stephen Walsh, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Patrick Stephen Walsh petitions for a writ of 

mandamus, alleging undue delay by the district court in ruling 

on his November 1, 2010 petition for relief from judgment under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), November 22, 2010 motion for return of 

property, June 21, 2011 motion to subpoena telephone records, 

and November 14, 2011 motion to amend the restitution order. 

A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be granted 

only in those extraordinary situations when no other remedy is 

available. United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 

(4th Cir. 2003). 

A review of the district court’s docket reveals that 

the district court recently directed the Government to file by 

July 30, 2013 a response to Walsh’s petition, motion to subpoena 

telephone records, and motion to amend the restitution order, 

pleadings to which the Government had not filed a response. 

Because there has been recent significant action in the district 

court, we conclude that Walsh is not entitled to mandamus 

relief. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition.* 

 * We anticipate that the district court will address 

promptly Walsh’s pending petition and motions following receipt 

of the Government’s response. However, in view of the length of 

time Walsh’s petition and motions have been pending in the 

district court, our denial of Walsh’s mandamus petition is 

without prejudice to the filing of another if further 

(Continued)
3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

PETITION DENIED

 

significant delay occurs in the district court after the 

expiration of the July 30 response deadline.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

HEE CHAN RYOU,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-231M

DETENTION ORDER 

Offense charged: 

Conspiracy to Commit False Use of Passport and Bank Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 1344 and 2.

Date of Detention Hearing: May 16, 2006.

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth, finds

the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Defendant has no ties to this community or to the Western District of

Washington.

(2) Defendant was born in and is a citizen of South Korea. 

Case 2:06-mj-00231-JPD Document 20 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(3) Because defendant has many friends, both parents, and five brothers residing in

Korea, defendant is viewed as a risk of flight.

(4) Defendant has little reason to avoid fleeing jurisdiction.

(5) There are no conditions or combination of conditions other than detention that

will ensure the appearance of the defendant in court.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with

counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant

is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose

of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States

Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 17th day of May, 2006.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-mj-00231-JPD Document 20 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 2
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 223

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding Freedom Day.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 9, 1999

Mr. COX (for himself, Mr. HASTERT, Mr. ARMEY, Mr. DELAY, Mr. WATTS

of Oklahoma, Mrs. FOWLER, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. DAVIS of Virginia,

Mr. GILMAN, Mr. DREIER, Mr. SPENCE, and Mr. LANTOS) submitted the

following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on International

Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

NOVEMBER 9, 1999

The Committees on Government Reform and International Relations

discharged; considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding Freedom

Day.

Whereas on November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall was torn

down by those whom it had imprisoned;

Whereas the fall of the Berlin Wall has become the preeminent symbol of the end of the Cold War;

Whereas the Cold War, at its essence, was a struggle for

human freedom;
2

•HCON 223 ATH

Whereas the end of the Cold War was brought about in large

measure by the dedication, sacrifice, and discipline of

Americans and many other peoples around the world

united in their opposition to Soviet Communism;

Whereas freedom’s victory in the Cold War against Soviet

Communism is the crowning achievement of the free

world’s long 20th century struggle against totalitarianism; and

Whereas it is highly appropriate to remind Americans, particularly those in their formal educational years, that

America paid the price and bore the burden to ensure the

survival of liberty on this planet: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

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

3 (1) a Freedom Day should be celebrated each

4 year in the United States; and

5 (2) the United States should join with other na6 tions, specifically including those which liberated

7 themselves to help end the Cold War, to establish a

8 global holiday called Freedom Day.

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk March 4, 2013

t0225 

# Order

March 4, 2013

145938

ANGELA E. DYKES,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

and

BRIAN DYKES,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 145938

COA: 299346

Kent CC: 08

- 002596

- NI

TARLOCHAN SINGH,

Defendant,

and

WEST MICHIGAN CARDIOLOGY, P.C.,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 21, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

V IVIANO , J., not participating.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 210

Expressing the strong support of the Congress for the recently concluded

elections in the Republic of India and urging the President to travel

to India.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 27, 1999

Mr. ACKERMAN submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the strong support of the Congress for the recently concluded elections in the Republic of India and

urging the President to travel to India.

Whereas the Republic of India is a longstanding parliamentary democracy where citizens may freely change their

government;

Whereas India has a thriving multiparty system where a

broad spectrum of political views are represented;

Whereas India recently conducted a successful round of elections, involving over 650,000,000 registered voters and

resulting in a 60 percent voter turnout and re-election of

Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee;

Whereas India and the United States share a special relationship as the world’s most populous democracy and the
2

•HCON 210 IH

world’s oldest democracy, respectively, and have a shared

commitment to upholding the will of the people and the

rule of law;

Whereas the Congress has included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000, a provision to allow the

President to pursue a broad-based strategic relationship

with India;

Whereas the President has expressed his continued desire to

travel to South Asia; and

Whereas India continues to be a shining example of democracy for all of Asia to follow: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) congratulates the people of the Republic of

4 India on the successful conclusion of their recent na5 tional elections;

6 (2) congratulates Prime Minister Atal Bihari

7 Vajpayee on his re-election;

8 (3) calls on the President to travel to India as

9 part of any trip to South Asia; and

10 (4) urges the President to use the authority

11 granted to him by the Congress in the Department

12 of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000.

Æ
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 MINUTE ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PAMELA BAUGHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KING COUNTY and THE CITY OF SEATTLE,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C06-00584-JCC

MINUTE ORDER

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 

Coughenour, United States District Judge:

On November 2, 2006, this Court vacated its dismissal of Plaintiff’s case against Defendants City

of Seattle and King County and ordered Plaintiff to pay a $50.00 fine to each Defendant. (Order (Dkt.

No. 27).) Defendants have now notified the Court that Plaintiff has paid the fines (Dkt. Nos. 30, 32) and

Plaintiff appears to have made a good faith effort to do so by the deadline imposed by the Court (Dkt.

Nos. 28, 29, 31). Accordingly, the Court finds that litigation on previously suspended issues should

proceed, as follows. 

Prior to the Court’s dismissal of this case on October 24, 2006, the Court had directed Defendant

City of Seattle to file a response to Plaintiff’s September 5, 2006 Show Cause Response (Dkt. No. 23) by

Case 2:06-cv-00584-BHS Document 34 Filed 12/26/06 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

25

26 MINUTE ORDER – 2

Friday, October 27, 2006. (October 17, 2006 Minute Order (Dkt. No. 24).) The Court now amends that

response due date and renotes pending issues. 

As previously directed, Defendant’s response should address the issues raised by Plaintiff in her

September 5, 2006 filing (Dkt. No. 23), as well as her subsequent October 19, 2006 filing (Dkt. No. 25)

as they relate to the requirements outlined in this Court’s August 22, 2006 Order (Dkt. Nos. 19, 21

(corrected as to deadlines)) regarding effectuation of service, exhaustion of claims, and jurisdiction. To

clarify, at issue now are: (1) whether Plaintiff effected proper service by October 2, 2006, as directed by

this Court upon quashing service (see August 22, 2006 Order 2:11–16) and (2) whether Plaintiff’s claims

against Defendant City of Seattle should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (see id. at 2:17–24). 

Plaintiff has responded to the Court’s Order to Show Cause on the second issue (Pl.’s Responses (Dkt.

Nos. 23, 25)). The Court now awaits the City of Seattle’s responsive argument regarding both questions. 

The City of Seattle’s pleading is due no later than January 19, 2007, on which date these issues shall be

noted for consideration by the Court.

DATED this 26th day of December, 2006.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk of Court

By /s/ C. Ledesma 

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00584-BHS Document 34 Filed 12/26/06 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8) pertaining to the 1998 Employee Incentive Plan of WavePhore, Inc. of our
report dated January 28, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of WavePhore, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 1997, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                Ernst & Young LLP



Phoenix, Arizona
December 3, 1998
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

 

CAPITOL SPECIALTY INSURANCE

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

TENNISON CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C05-2004JLR

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The court having been notified of the settlement of this matter and it appearing that no

issue remains for the court’s determination,

IT IS ORDERED that this action and all claims asserted herein are DISMISSED with

prejudice and without costs to any party.

In the event settlement is not perfected, any party may move to reopen the case,

provided such motion is filed within 60 days of the date of this order. Any trial date and

pretrial dates previously set are hereby VACATED. 

DATED this 6th day of November, 2006.

A 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02004-JLR Document 42 Filed 11/06/06 Page 1 of 1