alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

November 10, 2014

C Williams

State of Missouri

Re: In the Matter of Made in the USA Brand, LLC

File No. 142 3121, Docket No. C-4497

Thank you for commenting on the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed consent agreement in 

the above-referenced proceeding. The Commission has considered your comment and placed it on the 

public record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. §

4.9(b)(6)(ii).

In your comment, you request that the Commission “[s]top the deception” and require marketers 

to substantiate their U.S.-origin and other claims. You do not propose any revisions to the draft 

complaint or the consent agreement.

Section 5 of the FTC Act requires companies to possess substantiation for their marketing 

claims, and the Commission’s Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S.-Origin Claims provides specific 

guidance to marketers on how to substantiate those claims.1

 In particular, the Policy Statement provides 

that when a marketer makes an unqualified “Made in USA” claim, the marketer should – at the time the 

representation is made – possess and rely upon a reasonable basis establishing that the product is “all or 

virtually all” made in the United States. In this case, Section II of the consent agreement specifically 

requires Made in the USA Brand, LLC either to possess competent and reliable evidence substantiating 

its representations that products are made in the USA, or to disclose that it relies on self-certification to 

substantiate its clients’ claims.

Therefore, after considering your comment, the Commission has determined that the relief set 

forth in the consent agreement is appropriate and sufficient to remedy the violations alleged in the 

complaint. At this time, the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be served by 

issuing the Decision and Order in final form without modification. The final Decision and Order and 

other relevant materials are available on the Commission’s website at http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the 

Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its work, and we thank you again for your 

comment.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary

 

1 See 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) and Federal Trade Commission, Issuance of Enforcement Policy Statement on 

“Made in USA” and Other U.S. Origin Claims, 62 Fed. Reg. 63756, 63766 (December 2, 1997), 

available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/fedreg/1997/december/ 971202madeinusa.pdf.
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS: Jon Leibowitz, Chairman

J. Thomas Rosch 

Edith Ramirez

Julie Brill

Maureen K. Ohlhausen 

In the Matter of

MCWANE, INC., 

 a corporation, and 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., 

 a limited partnership. 

 

Docket No. 9351

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DECISION

AND COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY DECISION

On June 8, 2012, Respondent McWane, Inc. filed a Motion For Summary Decision, and

Complaint Counsel filed a Motion For Partial Summary Decision. The Commission has

considered both Motions, as well as both parties’ memoranda of law in support of and in

opposition to these Motions. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Opinion, the

Commission has determined to deny both Motions. Accordingly, 

I.

IT IS ORDERED THAT Respondent’s Motion For Summary Decision be, and it hereby

is, DENIED; and

II.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Complaint Counsel’s Motion for Partial

Summary Decision be, and it hereby is, DENIED.

By the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary

SEAL

ISSUED: August 9, 2012
Exhibit 99.2

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 Farrel Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 29, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Walter C
Lazarcheck, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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
      as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.


/s/ Walter C Lazarcheck
----------------------------------------------
Walter C Lazarcheck
Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
November 11, 2002
EXHIBIT
10.37
  INTERPRETIVE
AMENDMENT TO THE
 BE
AEROSPACE, INC.
 1994
EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN
 (Amended
and Restated as of January 1, 2006)
 
  THIS
INTERPRETATIVE AMENDMENT, (this “Amendment”) is made
as of the 23rd day of December, 2008 and amends the BE Aerospace, Inc. 1994
Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”).
  WHEREAS,BE Aerospace, Inc.
(the “Company”)
maintains the Plan;
  WHEREAS,pursuant to Section
16 of the Plan, the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the
Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) has the
authority to administer the Plan and to determine any questions that may arise
regarding the interpretation and application of the provisions of the
Plan;
  WHEREAS, the Committee has
delegated it authority to make such interpretive decisions to the BE Aerospace,
Inc. Benefits Committee (the “Benefits
Committee”);
  WHEREAS, the Benefits
Committee has determined that the provisions of Sections 3 and 6 of the Plan
contain inconsistent provisions with respect to the calculation of the share
maximum with respect to any option granted under the Plan and the effective date
of grant of options granted under the Plan;
 
 WHEREAS, since the adoption of
the Plan, the US Internal Revenue Service has issued proposed regulations under
Section 423 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that clarifies the
definition of “date of grant” for purposes of plans governed thereby, including
the Plan;
 
 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,
that the Benefits Committee hereby interprets the Plan to provide that the
effective date of grant of options granted thereunder shall be the date on which
the option is exercised;
  FURTHER RESOLVED,that in
order to affect the forgoing resolution, the third sentence of Section 6 of the
Plan is hereby replaced by the following sentence:
  “For
purposes of the preceding sentence, the share maximum with respect to any Option
for any Option Period shall be the largest whole number of shares which, when
multiplied by the fair market value of a share of Stock on the last day of the
Option Period, produces a dollar amount of $12,500 or less.”
  FURTHER RESOLVED, that this
Amendment shall apply with respect to all options exercises on and after the
date hereof;
  FURTHER RESOLVED,that the
Benefits Committee shall submit this Amendment to the Board for ratification and
approval at its next regularly scheduled meeting.
  
  The
undersigned has hereby approved this Amendment to the Plan as of the day and
year first above written.
  /s/
      R.J. LandryR.J.
      Landry/s/
      Thomas P. McCaffreyThomas P.
      McCaffrey/s/
      Edmund J. MoriartyEdmund J. Moriarty/s/ Stephen R. SwisherStephen R. Swisher
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RANDOLPH BENJAMIN RODMAN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-10470

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-01047-ROS-2

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Roslyn O. Silver, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 12, 2016** 

San Francisco, California

Before: McKEOWN, SACK

***, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. 

Randolph Rodman appeals the district court’s application of the U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines on remand for resentencing after our decisions in United

FILED

MAY 17 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable Robert D. Sack, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
States v. Rodman, 776 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2015), and United States v. Rodman, 596

F. App’x 548 (9th Cir. 2015). Rodman argues that the district court engaged in

impermissible double counting by applying an enhancement for committing an

offense wherein “any firearm . . . had an altered or obliterated serial number,”

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B), in sentencing Rodman for convictions under 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(k) and 26 U.S.C. § 5861(g) (Counts 62 and 65, respectively), both of which

involved an element of obliterating a serial number. We affirm the district court’s

sentencing under the harmless error doctrine. See United States v. MunozCamarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

Harmless error review applies where the district court “performs the

sentencing analysis with respect to an incorrect Guidelines range that overlaps

substantially with a correct Guidelines range such that the explanation for the

sentence imposed is sufficient even as to the correct range.” Id. at 1030 n.5. Here,

Rodman argues for an error in double counting only with respect to Counts 62 and

65. He identifies no double counting error with respect to the sentences for the

remainder of the fifteen counts of conviction, each of which was to run

concurrently, and at least some of which would have received the same base

offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(5) because they “involved a firearm

described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a).” Further, the U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)

2
enhancement could have been, and in fact was, applied to at least one of these same

counts. Rodman would therefore have received the same sentence even if the

district court did not apply the enhancement to the convictions under Counts 62

and 65. Accordingly, any double counting error on Counts 62 and 65 was

harmless.

AFFIRMED.

3
##### 



Exhibit 32(b)

Certification
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)

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 officer of Oxford Health Plans, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (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 information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: February 4, 2004 |  | /s/ KURT B. THOMPSON   
|                        |  |                        
|                        |  | Kurt B. Thompson       
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7479 

To provide for a regional center for security studies for the Arctic in the 

Department of Defense, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 1, 2020 

Mr. YOUNG (for himself, Mr. COLE, and Mrs. RADEWAGEN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To provide for a regional center for security studies for 

the Arctic in the Department of Defense, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TED STEVENS ARCTIC CENTER FOR SECURITY 

4 STUDIES. 

5 (a) ESTABLISHMENT REQUIRED.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense 

7 shall establish and administer for purposes of sec8 tion 342 of title 10, United States Code, and other 

9 applicable provisions of law, a Department of DeVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:45 Jul 25, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7479.IH H7479

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7479 IH

1 fense Regional Center for Security Studies for the 

2 Arctic. 

3 (2) DESIGNATION.—The Regional Center for 

4 Security Studies established and administered pur5 suant to paragraph (1) shall be known as the ‘‘Ted 

6 Stevens Arctic Center for Security Studies’’. 

7 (3) LOCATION.—The Regional Center for Secu8 rity Studies established and administered pursuant 

9 to paragraph (1) shall be located in such location in 

10 a non-contiguous State as the Secretary considers 

11 appropriate. 

12 (b) SIXTH REGIONAL CENTER FOR SECURITY STUD13 IES.—Section 184(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, 

14 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub15 paragraph: 

16 ‘‘(F) The Ted Stevens Arctic Center for Secu17 rity Studies, located in a non-contiguous State.’’. 

18 (c) ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS AND DONATIONS.—Sec19 tion 2611(a)(2) of such title is amended by adding at the 

20 end the following new subparagraph: 

21 ‘‘(F) The Ted Stevens Arctic Center for Secu22 rity Studies.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 110 (Thursday, June 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 26454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12241]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-1534-000]

East Hampton Energy Storage Center, LLC; Supplemental Notice That 
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
East Hampton Energy Storage Center, LLC`s application for market-based 
rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is June 21, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
[email protected]. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 1, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12241 Filed 6-6-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
#### In re Ellis James LUKER, III, alias Junior v. STATE. Ex parte Ellis James Luker, III, alias Junior.

77-550.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 8, 1978.

A1 Pennington, Mobile, for petitioner.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and James F. Hampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State, respondent.

EMBRY, Justice.

The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and ALMON, JJ., concur.
October 16, 2015

Mr. Kyle Larson

4249 Creek Bed Court

Las Vegas, NV 89129

Dear Mr . Larson :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your exemption request , posted to the public docket on July 24, 2015, filed in

D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 3158 , but we are unable to process your request any further. Your

petition does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider

the request any further, you must send us all of t he following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, o r arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notif ying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION OF REGISTRANT AS OF JUNE 30, 2000
(UNAUDITED) AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF REGISTRANT FOR THE
SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       6,253,000
<SECURITIES>                                16,329,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,322,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   253,000
<INVENTORY>                                    432,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       5,702,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,437,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,970,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,125,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,194,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,970,000
<SALES>                                     18,847,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,852,000
<CGS>                                       13,723,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,274,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               126,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              96,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                578,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   391,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                 693,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   707,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09


</TABLE>
ORIGINAL 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 


OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

McWANE, INC., ) 

a corporation, and ) DOCKET NO. 9351 

) 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., ) 

a limited partnership, ) 

Respondents. ) 

) 

ORDER ON NON-PARTIES' MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

On July 25,2012, non-parties SIGMA Corporation ("SIGMA"), Star Pipe Products, Ltd. ("Star 

Pipe") and U.S. Pipe & Foundry Company, Inc. ("U.S. Pipe") each filed unopposed motions for 

extension oftime to file motions for in camera treatment. Under the Scheduling Order in this case, the 

deadline for submitting motions for in camera treatment under Rule 3.45(b) is July 27,2012. SIGMA, 

Star Pipe, and U.S. Pipe each have requested an order extending the deadline for filing motions for in 

camera treatment to July 31,2012. 

In support oftheir motions, each asserts that it received notice from Complaint Counsel and 

Respondent McWane Inc. ("McWane") on or about July 17, 2012, that the parties intend to offer into 

evidence certain confidential documents, data, and deposition testimony provided by the non-parties 

during discovery. Each non-party states that it is in the process ofreviewing confidential materials and 

identifying those for which it will seek in camera treatment. Each ofthe non-parties represents that 

Complaint Counsel -and Mc Wane have indicated that they do not oppose the requested extension of 

time. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Unopposed Motions are GRANTED. It 

is hereby ORDERED that the deadline for SIGMA, Star Pipe, and U.S. Pipe to file a motion for in 

camera treatment shall be Tuesday, July 31,2012. The parties' opposition to such motions, if any, 

shall be filed no later than August 9, 2012. 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: July 26,2012
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of Cyrk, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-64501 and
333-56863) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-45655, 33-89534 and 33-75194) of our
report dated February 4, 2000 relating to the audit of the consolidated
financial statements and the financial statement schedule of Cyrk, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998 and for the three years ended
December 31, 1999, 1998 and 1997, which report is included in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K.



                                                      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
March 27, 2000