alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 70991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22562]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following 
agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may 
submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the 
agreements to the Secretary by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d98abcbaabbcadb8aba099bfb4baf7beb6af"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="095a6c6a7b6c7d687b70496f646a276e667f">[email protected]</span></a>, or by mail, 
Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, Washington, DC 
20573. Comments will be most helpful to the Commission if received 
within 12 days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register, 
and the Commission requests that comments be submitted within 7 days on 
agreements that request expedited review. Copies of agreements are 
available through the Commission's website (www.fmc.gov) or by 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e793958683828689868b9e948e94a7818a84c9808891"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e49096858081858a85889d978d97a4828987ca838b92">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Agreement No.: 201409.
    Agreement Name: Seven Seals Co., Ltd. and Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, 
Ltd. Space Charter Agreement.
    Parties: Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.; Seven Seals Co., Ltd.
    Filing Party: Neal Mayer; Hoppel, Mayer & Coleman.
    Synopsis: The Agreement authorizes Seven Seals to charter space for 
the carriage of cars to K-Line on an ``as needed/as available basis'' 
in the Trade between ports in Japan and the U.S. West Coast.
    Proposed Effective Date: 10/3/2023.
    Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/FMC.Agreements.Web/Public/AgreementHistory/84522.

    Dated: October 6, 2023.
Carl Savoy,
Federal Register Alternate Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-22562 Filed 10-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
BOARO OF GOVERNORS
OF TH

€
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

WASHINGTON, 0. £. 20551

ADDRESS CFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD,

August 3, 2017

Ms. Jennifer Dawn Milteer Conn
305 Brandywine Lane
Springfield, Tennessee 37172

Dear Ms. Conn:

The General Counsel, acting pursuant to delegated authority, and after
consultation with the Director of the Division of Supervision and Regulation, has approved your
request pursuant to section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act! to become an institution-
affiliated party of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”),
Bloomington, Illinois, a savings and loan holding company (“SLHC”). This approval is limited
to your being an institution-affiliated party of State Farm, including by working for an
independently owned agency that sells State Farm insurance products and products for State
Farm’s wholly owned subsidiary, State Farm Bank, f.s.b. (“State Farm Bank”), Bloomington,
Illinois, If you seek to work for another SLHC or bank holding company (“BHC”), or an
independently owned agency that sells products for another SLC or BHC, you must obtain the
Board’s approval to do so.

This action is based on all the facts of record and representations made by you to
the Board in connection with your request. Any change in the facts presented could result in a
different conclusion and should be reported immediately to Board staff. These representations
constitute conditions imposed in writing in connection with the findings and decision herein and,
as such, may be enforced in proceedings under applicable law. This action is also conditioned
specifically on your receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals and compliance with any terms
and conditions that may be imposed upon such approvals. Additionally, if you are convicted of,
or enter into a pretrial diversion program for, a crime involving dishonesty, breach of trust, or
money laundering in the future, you must again seek approval to work for any SLHC, BHC, or
independently owned agency that sells products for an SLHC or BHC, including any agency that
sells States Farm and State Farm Bank products.

Sincerely,

Nn aye Naren

MargaretMcCloskey Shanks
Deputy Secretary of the Board

112 U.S.C. § 1829.
Before the Second Division,

March 8, 1960

No. 63925.

protests 59/13446, 59/19665, and 59/15466 (New York).

#### Inter Maritime Fdg. Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*376Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the' merchandise consists of Tuteh latches the same in all material respects as those' the subject of *Linread, Products, Inc.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 262, C.D. 1939), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 54445.

#### Tuteur Bio Chemicals, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 153272-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protest was dismissed.
Before Judge Watson,

June 28, 1966

No. R66/10.

#### Panation Trade Co. *v.*United States, reappraisements R64/18640, etc. (New York).

Watson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues of fact and law are the same in all material respects as those in *Panation Trade Co.*v. *United States,*54 Cust. Ct. 758, A.R.D. 181, the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the cigarette lighters here in question and that such values were the invoiced unit ex-factory prices.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7205

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. KENNETH RAY HUNTER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Elkins

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 2:05

- cr
- 00049

- JPB

- JES

- 1 )

Submitted : November 21, 2017 Decided: November 28, 2017

Before WYNN and THACKER , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Kenneth Ray Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Ray Hunter appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior order denying Hunter’s motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(2) (2012) , because Hunter was sentenced as a
career offender

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error

. See United States v. May , 855 F.3d 271, 274 (4th Cir. 2017) (noting that prohibition on a district
court’s consideration of a motion to reconsider a § 3582 order is not jurisdictional and is waived if not invoked by t he g overnment ). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order. 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.

AFFIRMED
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

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL L KEARNEY,

 Defendant.

Case No. CR06-5293

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination of

conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a crime

of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of the

person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would impose

to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of sufficient ties to the community.

 ( ) Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Other:

 (/) Defendant present on writ from state court custody.

 

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility separate,

to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 October 17, 2008.

___s/ Karen L. Strombom 

Karen L Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case No. 12,984.

#### In re SMITH.

[2 N. B. R. 297 (Quarto. 98); 1 Chi. Leg. News, 123] 2

District Court, S. D. New York.

Dec. 1, 1868.

Bankruptcy — Petition—Relief—Appearance.

1. A creditor may petition the court for relief, to be paid a judgment against the bankrupt, out of moneys in the hands of the assignee in bankruptcy, but the proper way to bring the credit- or into the case is by petition, setting forth the facts on which he relies for relief, and praying for the specific relief he seeks.

[Cited in Re Frizelle, Case No. 5,133.]

2. In the first instance, seeking affirmative relief, he must come in person and not by attorney.

[In the matter of John Ogden Smith, a bankrupt. See Case No. 12,971.]

W. A. Coursen, for the motion.

G. De F. Lord, for assignee.

2

 [Reprinted from 2 N. B. R. 297 (Quarto, 98), by permission. 1 Chi. Leg. News, 123, contains only a partial report.]

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

In this case the attorney for one Matthew P. Read moves, on his behalf, on an affidavit made by such attorney, and on notice to the assignee in bankruptcy of the bankrupt, that such as-*398signee be directed to pay to said Read or to bis attorney the amount of a certain judgment recovered by said Read, against the bankrupt, out of the moneys in the hands of such as-signee held by him as such. Read claims to be paid the money adversely to the assignee, and the assignee claims to hold the money adversely to Read. This motion is not a suit in equity, brought under the second section of the act [of 1SC7 (14 Stat.517)], as an independent original suit, but is sought to be made a part of the matter in bankruptcy, under the first section. I concur in the view of Judge Benedict in Re Kerosene Oil Co. [Case No. 7,725] (Eastern Dist. of N. Y., Nov., 1868), that such relief as is applied for on this motion may be obtained upon a petition in the bankrupt matter. There is, however, no such petition now before the court. Read should sign and verify a petition setting forth the facts on which he relies for relief, and praying for the specific relief he seeks. Coming into court as he does in an original manner, seeking affirmative relief, and not brought in by another party, he must come in in person in the first instance, and not by attorney. For these reasons the motion is denied.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 329

Urging the detention and extradition to the United States by the appropriate

foreign governments of Mohammed Abbas for the murder of Leon Klinghoffer.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 19, 2000

Mr. BENTSEN (for himself and Mr. FORBES) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Urging the detention and extradition to the United States

by the appropriate foreign governments of Mohammed

Abbas for the murder of Leon Klinghoffer.

Whereas Mohammed Abbas, alias Abu Abbas, was convicted

by a Genoan court in June 1986 and sentenced to life

in prison, in absentia, for ‘‘kidnapping for terrorist ends

that caused the killing of a person’’ for his role in the

death of an American citizen, Leon Klinghoffer;

Whereas a report from the Italian magistrate who tried the

case against Abbas stated that the evidence was ‘‘multiple, unequivocal, and overwhelming’’ and that his actions in training and financing for this operation, and in

choosing the target, as well as in planning the escape,

made Abbas guilty of the murder;
2

•HCON 329 IH

Whereas a warrant for Abbas’ arrest was unsealed in October

1985 charging him with hijacking, and a bounty of

$250,000 was offered for his arrest;

Whereas the Justice Department felt that it did not have the

evidence to convict him, and citing the conviction, albeit

in absentia by the Italian authorities, canceled the warrant for his arrest in January 1988; and

Whereas at an April 1996 meeting of the Palestine National

Council in Gaza, Abbas described the killing as ‘‘a mistake’’ and that Mr. Klinghoffer was killed because he

‘‘had started to incite the passengers against [the kidnappers]’’: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

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

3 Attorney General should seek, from the appropriate for4 eign government, the detention and extradition to the

5 United States of Mohammed Abbas (also known as Abu

6 Abbas) for the murder of Leon Klinghoffer in October

7 1985 during the hijacking of the vessel Achille Lauro.

Æ
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 4
 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 4
EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 4
 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 4
# Official Journal C 113/2007

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 113 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5023 May 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 113

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5023 May 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 113/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4601 — KarstadtQuelle/MyTravel) (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2007/C 113/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4601 — KarstadtQuelle/MyTravel) (1)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 113/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2007/C 113/02

Euro exchange rates

2

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
Exhibit 32.1      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   I, Peter Toscano, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Operating Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of International Power Group, Ltd. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  6. This Annual Report on 10-KSB of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 7. The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    Date:  April 16, 2007  /s/ Peter ToscanoPeter Toscano(Chief Executive Officer  and Chairman of the Board of Directors)
(Principal Executive Officer)
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Sepracor Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2006as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned, Timothy J. Barberich, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)   the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 9, 2006
|        | /s/ TIMOTHY J.  BARBERICH |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Timothy J. Barberich      |
|   | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Sepracor Inc. and will beretained by Sepracor Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24-A


                            SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

      KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned constitutes and
appoints CLARENCE J. BAUDHUIN his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent
with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name,
place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign a Form S-3 Registration
Statement for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission respecting the
registration of shares of Common Stock, $.001 par value, of Zila, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, together with any and all amendments (including
post-effective amendments) to such Registration Statement, and to file the same
with all exhibits thereto, and all documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting such attorney-in-fact and agent
full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully and to
all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that such attorney-in-fact and agent may lawfully do or cause to
be done by virtue hereof.

      DATED: December 11, 1997



                                    /s/ Joseph Hines
                                    ------------------------------
                                    JOSEPH HINES

STATE OF ARIZONA     }
                     }   ss.
County of Maricopa   }


      On this 11th day of December, 1997, before me, the undersigned Notary
Public, personally appeared Joseph Hines, known to me to be the person whose
name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that he executed
the same for the purposes therein contained.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.



                                    /s/ Janice L. Backus
                                    ------------------------------
                                    Notary Public

My commission expires: October 23, 2001
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During the Review **

EO12866_RIN2070-AJ92_Formaldehyde-Imp_NPRM_EA-A4-table_2012-02-27.docx 

Reg Plan Costs and Benefits Table for 

Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products; Proposed Rule 

SAN 5287; RIN 2070-AJ92 

Source citation: Economic Analysis of the Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products Act Implementin

Rule. 

Category Primary Estimate Low Estimate High Estimate 

Units 

Year 

Dollars Disc Period Co

BenefitsAnnualized Monetized $millions/year 

Not estimated $91 $137 2010 7% 2014 to 204Not estimated $184 $278 2010 3% 2014 to 204

Annualized Quantified Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated 7% Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated 3% 

Qualitative: Unquantified benefits due to avoided cases of upper respiratory tract pathology, pulmonary function, allergic sensitizatneurological and behavioral toxicity, and developmental toxicity. CostsAnnualized Monetized $millions/year

Not estimated $72 $81 2010 7% 2014 to 204

Not estimated $81 $89 2010 3% 2014 to 204

Annualized Quantified Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated 7% Not estimated Not estimated Not estimated 3% 

QualitativeTransfers

Federal Annualized Monetized $millions/year

Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 

From: To: 

Other Annualized Monetized $millions/year 

Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 7% Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 3% 

 From: To: EffectsState, Local, and/or Tribal Government Government entities are not expected to be subject to the rule’s requirements, which apply to entities that manufacture, fabricate, di

products. The rule does not have a significant intergovernmental mandate, significant or unique effect on small governments, or ha

Small BusinessApproximately 879,000 small firms impacted: ~851,000 have costs impacts < 1% of revenues, ~23,000 firms have impacts between 

have impacts > 3% of revenues. Most firms with impacts > 1% have annualized costs < $250. 

WagesNot estimated GrowthNot estimated. Unlikely – rule costs are less than $1 billion per year.