alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 212 (Friday, November 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 75540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24360]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Notice of Public Meeting of the Indiana Advisory Committee; 
Correction

AGENCY: Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice; Revision to registration link and telephone access 
information.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights published a notice in the 
Federal Register on Monday, June 5, 2023, concerning meetings of the 
Indiana Advisory Committee. The registration link and telephone access 
information for the upcoming meetings have been updated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivy Davis, Director of Eastern 
Regional Office and Designated Federal Officer, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1b7e69745b6e68787869357c746d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ef8a9d80af9a9c8c8c9dc1888099">[email protected]</span></a> or 1-
202-539-8468.
    Correction: In the Federal Register on Monday, June 5, 2023, in FR 
Document Number 2023-11830, on page 36529, second column, correct the 
registration link to https://bit.ly/3FFKaVq and correct the telephone 
access information to 1-833-435-1820, Webinar ID: 161 660 6833#.

    Dated: October 31, 2023.
David Mussatt,
Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
[FR Doc. 2023-24360 Filed 11-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 55129.

#### Bergdorf Goodman Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 142775-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Eord, J.

The protests were dismissed.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 1562

HUGO ROLANDO CASTILLO

,

Petitioner

,

v.

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER

, Acting Attorney General

,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of a n Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : November 19, 2018 Decided: December 13, 2018

Before WILKINSON and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Michael E. Ward, ALSTON & BIRD LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Rebekah Nahas, Trial Attorney, Karen L. Melnik, Trial Attorney, O ffice of Immigration Litigation

, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUS TICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Hugo Rolando Castillo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of

an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) granting reconsideration,

reinstating his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his requests for relief from

removal and dismissing his appeal after consideration of his appellate brief . We have

thoroughly reviewed the record and Castillo’s claim s and conclude that the record

evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s

decision, INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1 992). Accordingly, we deny the

petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Castillo (B.I.A. Apr. 24,

2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officers of Stream Communications Network & Media Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officers' knowledge, that:



1.

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and



2.

Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: June 7, 2006



Iwona Kozak

President



Date: June 7, 2006



Casey Forward

Controller
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20276

(Summary Calendar)

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VICTOR C. AMADI,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(USDC No. CR-H-95-8-6)

- - - - - - - - - -

December 24, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Victor Amadi appeals his sentence following his plea of guilty

to conspiracy to defraud the Government and for aiding and abetting

in making false claims to a government agency, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 2, 286, and 287. Amadi contends that: (1) there was

insufficient evidence to establish that his offenses involved more

than minimal planning or that he played an managerial role in the

offenses; (2) the district court erred by enhancing his offense
2

level both for more than minimal planning and for his aggravated

role in the offense; and 3) the district court erred in determining

the amount of the loss for which Amadi was responsible. Our review

of the record and of the arguments and authorities convinces us

that no reversible error was committed. 

Amadi has not met his burden of demonstrating that the

district court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous that

Amadi’s offenses involved more than minimal planning under U.S.S.G.

§ 2F1.1(b)(2) and that Amadi played an aggravated role under §

3B1.1. See United States v. Barreto, 871 F.2d 511, 512 (5th Cir.

1989). Additionally, because neither § 3B1.1 nor § 2F1.1 forbid

“double-counting” with each other, increases under both of those

sections are permitted. See United States v. Godfrey, 25 F.3d 263,

264 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 429 (1994). Finally,

Amadi’s conduct in the sixteen substantive counts to which he

pleaded guilty falls within § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A). Amadi fails to show

that the district court’s calculation of the loss attributable to

his conduct was clearly erroneous. See United States v. Tedder, 81

F.3d 549, 550 (5th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
      32(i)





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 on Form 10-QSB of Dialog Group, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
      Peter V. DeCrescenzo, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
      certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, that:


(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(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.





Dated:
      November __, 2007




/s/
                Peter V. DeCrescenzoPeter
                V. DeCrescenzo, CEO
No. P68/174.

protests 65/11684, 65/12596, and 65/18476 (New York).

#### Durst Industries, Inc. *v.*United States,

Becicworti-i, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A” covered by the foregoing protests consist of hose nozzles in chief value of zinc similar in all material respects, except for composition, to those the subject of *United States*v. *Lipman's*(52 CCPA 59, C.A.D. 859), and that the items marked “B” consist of shutoff connections, gooseneck connections, snap attachments, or Siamese shutoffs in chief value of zinc similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of said C.A.D. 859, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the First Division,

December 1, 1959

No. 63545.

protest 59/10686 (New York).

#### Gellis Flower Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protest was dismissed.
Case 2:04-cv-20219-HB Document 12 Filed 10/23/09 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-20219-HB Document 12 Filed 10/23/09 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-20219-HB Document 12 Filed 10/23/09 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-20219-HB Document 12 Filed 10/23/09 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-20219-HB Document 12 Filed 10/23/09 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:04-cv-20219-HB Document 12 Filed 10/23/09 Page 6 of 6
**Exhibit      99.7**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

**18        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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                  Fund. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                  Robert J. Waters                                                                                                 |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Robert                  J. WatersSenior                  Vice President and Chief                  Financial Officer of EnerMark Inc. |   |

*The        foregoing certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section        18        of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.        Such        certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any        filing        under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the        registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7263

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GREGORY HOOTEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (CR-97-109, CA-00-50)

Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 14, 2002

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Hooten, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Hooten seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2000).

A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed

by a district court on the merits absent a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

(2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on

procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue

unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1)‘that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid

claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252

F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000)). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the

reasons stated by the district court that Hooten has not satisfied

either standard. See United States v. Hooten, Nos. CR-97-109; CA00-50 (W.D.N.C. July 18, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
No. 52885.

#### Clutsom Machines, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 116686-K (Bridgeport).

Opinion by

Lawbence, J.

The uncontradicted evidence showed that the Clutsom textile machines are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Clutsom Machines, Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 30, C. D. 1122). Although plaintiff failed to make any claim for relief as to the parts of machines involved in the cited case, appropriate claim was made in the instant case. Following the cited authority, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual report on Form 10-K of ATEL Capital Equipment Fund IX, LP, (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial and Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, Managing Member of the Company, hereby certify that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 8, 2007



|                       |  | 
|---------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi |  | 
|Paritosh K. Choksi     |  | 

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial and Operating Officer of

ATEL Financial Services, LLC (Managing Member)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,011,842
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             8,520,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  4,045,210
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     28,104,663
<ALLOWANCE>                                   (293,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,009,252
<DEPOSITS>                                  31,013,410
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             91,981
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    13,736,765
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,832,904)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              43,009,252
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                963,174
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              282,146
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,245,320
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             484,011
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             484,047
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          761,273
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  128,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,346,025
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (712,752)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (712,752)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (712,752)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.49)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.23
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               235,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              293,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           293,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
# C_2015294EN.01008102.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/81

---

Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Choice v OHIM (Choice chocolate & ice cream)

(Case T-361/15)

(2015/C 294/98)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Choice sp. z o.o. (Legnica, Poland) (represented by: T. Mielke, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Choice chocolate & ice cream’ — Application for registration No 1 2 6 44  423

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2015 in Case R 2221/2014-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# AMERICANAIRLINES

April 9, 2010

Dorothy Beard Docket Branch Department of Transportation 1200 New JerseyAve., S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: oneworldApplication for Antitrust Immunity, DOT-OST-2008-0252

DearMs. Beard:

In their comments on show-cause Order 2010-2-8 onMarch 30, 2010, the joint applicants statedthat the European Commission is in the process of formally market testing a set of commitments for the JBA. The Commission's document is available at itrust isions 39596 con:unitments.pdf

On behalf of the Joint Applicants,

# jtf:<:7o~;0p--CbN

SeniorAttorney American Airlines, Inc. P.O. Box 619616, MD 5675 DFW Airport, Texas 75261 (817) 967 3478 jeff.ogar@aa.com

cc: Service list------ ------ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certifythat I have this day served the foregoing document by email on the following persons:

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com jhill@dlalaw.com scott.mcclain@delta.com bill@mietuslaw.com sametta.c.barnett@delta.com mgoldman@sgbdc.com kquinn@pillsburywinthrop.com rsilverberg@sgbdc.com bkeiner@crowell.com dhainbach@ggh-airlaw.com mrosia@crowell.com mcmillin@woa.com bruce.rabinovitz@wilmerhale.com eskraft@jamhoff.com jeffrey.manley@united.com dpdean@jamhoff.com bob.kneisley@wnco.com dkirstein@yklaw.com robert.land@jetblue.com jyoung@yklaw.com msinick@ssd.com donna.kooperstein@usdoj.gov cdonley@ssd.com dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil gbleopard@fedex.com jim.ballough@faa.gov dvaughan@kelleydrye.com byerlyjr@state.gov kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com recohn@hhlaw.com jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com cjsimpson@zsrlaw.com lhalloway@crowell.com pmurphy@lopmurphy.com efaberman@wileyrein.com lachter@starpower.net mroller@rollerbauer.com anita.mosner@hklaw.com howard.kass@usairways.com rpommer@atlasair.com benjamin.slocum@usairways.com gmurphy@crowell.com sophy.chen@hklaw.com russell.bailey@alpa.org david.heffernan@wilmerhale.com

# CA<d.'1~--- April 9, 2010

--.-­
Order entered July 25, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01421-CV

WAL-MART STORES, INC.; WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP; WAL-MART 

LOUISIANA, LLC; SAM’S EAST, INC., AND SAM’S WEST, INC., Appellants

V.

XEROX STATE & LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC. A/K/A/, F/K/A ACS STATE & LOCAL 

SOLUTIONS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-13629

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ “Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Appellants’ Reply Brief.” Appellants’ motion is GRANTED. Appellants’ reply brief shall be 

filed by August 9, 2019. We caution appellants that further requests for extension of time will be 

disfavored.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE