alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5242]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

48 CFR Chapter 10

RIN 1505-AC41


Department of the Treasury Acquisition Regulation; Internet 
Payment Platform; Correction

AGENCY: Office of the Procurement Executive, Treasury.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed 
rulemaking, which was published in the Federal Register on Thursday, 
February 23, 2012 (77 FR 10714), relating to the Internet Payment 
Platform.

DATES: Comment due date: April 23, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald Backes, Director, Acquisition 
Management, Office of the Procurement Executive, at (202) 622-5930 
(this is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On February 23, 2012, the Department of the Treasury published a 
notice of proposed rulemaking that would amend the Department of the 
Treasury Acquisition Regulations to implement the Internet Payment 
Platform. As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking contains an 
error, which may prove to be misleading and is in need of 
clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking, 
FR Doc. 2012-4216, published February 23, 2012 at 77 FR 10714, is 
corrected as follows:


Sec.  1032.7003  [Corrected]

    1. On page 10716, in the third column, in Sec.  1032.7003, the date 
``October 1, 2011'' is corrected to ``October 1, 2012''.

    Dated: February 24, 2012.
Ronald W. Backes,
Director, Acquisition Management, Office of the Procurement Executive.
[FR Doc. 2012-5242 Filed 3-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AgFeed Industries, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the quarter ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Xiong
Junhong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





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





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





Dated:  November
      9, 2009
              By:
              /s/ Xiong JunhongXiong
      JunhongChief
      Executive Officer





This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
---

Exhibit 13.1

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

In connection with the annual
report of Globetech Ventures Corp. (the Company) on Amended Form 20-F for the
period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers
of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers knowledge:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

Date: April 1, 2008

| | /s/ Casey Forward
| | -----------------
| | Name:            
| | Title:           
| |                  
| |                  
| | /s/ Ping Shen    
| | Name:            
| | Title:           

---
1Pursuant 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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-31064

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

HAROLD RAY WISDOM,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

(CR-95-50012)

May 14, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Harold Ray Wisdom argues that his trial counsel was

ineffective for failing to respond to the Government’s request for

notice of his alibi witnesses; by failing to call alibi witnesses

at trial, and for failing to request additional jury instructions.

Wisdom’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on

counsel’s failures regarding alibi witnesses was not factually
2

developed in the district court. We therefore decline to address

the merits of the claim on direct appeal, but we do so without

prejudice to Wisdom’s right to raise the issue in a 28 U.S.C. §

2255 motion proceeding. See United States v. Andrews, 22 F.3d

1328, 1345 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 346 (1994).

With respect to Wisdom’s argument that counsel was ineffective

in failing to request additional jury instructions, we have

reviewed the record, including the trial transcript and the jury

instructions given by the district court to the jury, and have

determined that Wisdom has failed to demonstrate that his counsel

was ineffective in failing to request the additional instructions

proposed by Wisdom on appeal. See Strickland v. Washington, 466

U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32

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

The undersigned, Michael J. Smith, President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director of Trimaine Holdings, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Trimaine Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003 (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 Trimaine Holdings, Inc.

|Dated: March 30, 2004 |  |                                                                                                     
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |                                                                                                     
|                      |  |                                                                                                     
|                      |  | /s/ Michael J. Smith                                                                                
|                      |  | Michael J. Smith 
President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director
Trimaine Holdings, Inc.
|                      |  |                                                                                                     
|                      |  |                                                                                                     
|                      |  |                                                                                                     
|                      |  |                                                                                                     
|                      |  |                                                                                                     
|                      |  |                                                                                                     
|                      |  |                                                                                                     
|                      |  |                                                                                                     



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Trimaine Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Trimaine Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(q)

                           EXECUTIVE BONUS PLAN 1999


Effective January 1, 1999, the Company revised the threshold established for
bonus consideration to take into account the termination of management and
consulting services provided to Native American operations in Arizona and New
York. The new threshold is $25.0 million in EBITDA, prior to accruing bonus
expense and adjusted for extraordinary, non-recurring items that are deemed
non-operational in nature ("Adjusted EBITDA"). The bonus amount will start at
1.4% of Adjusted EBITDA at the $25.0 million level and increase by one tenth of
one percent for each $1.0 million of Adjusted EBITDA above $25.0 million up to a
maximum of 3%. Each percentage increase achieved would be on a first dollar
basis and computed on the entire adjusted EBITDA. The compensation committee
will have full discretion concerning the payment of executive bonuses.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                 EBITDA           BONUS            1999
               $(000,000)         FACTOR         BONUS POOL
               ----------         ------         ----------
                <S>               <C>            <C>
                   25              1.4%          $  350,000
                   26              1.5%             390,000
                   27              1.6%             432,000
                   28              1.7%             476,000
                   29              1.8%             522,000
                   30              1.9%             570,000
                   31              2.0%             620,000
                   32              2.1%             672,000
                   33              2.2%             726,000
                   34              2.3%             782,000
                   35              2.4%             840,000
                   36              2.5%             900,000
                   37              2.6%             962,000
                   38              2.7%           1,026,000
                   39              2.8%           1,092,000
                   40              2.9%           1,160,000
                   41              3.0%           1,230,000
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Daniel Roy FLEBOTTE, Appellant.

No. 74-1016.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Sept. 5, 1974.

Decided Sept. 26, 1974.

James R. Rogers, III, Raleigh, N. C., for appellant.

Jack B. Crawley, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., (Thomas P. McNamara, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this 2255, 28 U.S.C. proceeding, the appellant, who at the time of his conviction and sentencing was twenty years of age, complains of the failure of the District Court to make “explicit” findings, before sentencing under other applicable sentencing provisions, why the appellant would not have been benefited by sentencing under the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5005 et seq. The District Court dismissed the petition, holding that at sentencing it had made “implicit”, though not “explicit” findings justifying failure to sentence under the Act. It is not sufficient, however, that the findings against the use of the Act in such a case as this be “implicit” ; the statute, it has been held, requires “explicit” findings on the record that no benefit would result from sentencing under the Act. The order of the District Court is accordingly reversed and remanded, with directions, that the appellant’s sentence be vacated and his sentence reconsidered. Dorszynski v. United States (1974), 418 U.S. 424, 94 S.Ct. 3042, 41 L.Ed.2d 855; United States v. Ashby (4th Cir. 1974), 502 F.2d 1163 (Table).

As we said in *Ashby,*however, “[Although we conclude that on this record the sentence imposed was invalid, it may validly be imposed if the district court in its discretion concludes that [the appellant] would not benefit from treatment under the Act and makes that specific finding; otherwise [appellant] should be sentenced under the Act.”

Sentence vacated; remanded with directions.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

As independent auditors, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference
of our reports on the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule of PepsiAmericas, Inc. (formerly known as Pepsi-Cola
Puerto Rico Bottling Company) ("PAS") and Subsidiaries for the year ended
September 30, 1997, included in the Form 10-K, into the following
registration statements previously filed by PAS: Form S-8 (File No.
333-31970); Form S-8 (File No. 333-90855); Form S-3 (File No. 333-90015);
Form S-8 (File No. 333-40091); Form S-3 (File No.333-40093).

                                              KPMG LLP

San Juan, Puerto Rico
March 30, 2000
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AgFeed Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ending June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), John A. Stadler, Interim Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





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





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





Dated:  August 9, 2011
By:
/s/ John A. StadlerJohn A. StadlerInterim Chief Executive Officer





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.34 MB)

Tags:DSCC, DLA, Land and Maritime

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00094-CR

Ruben Rocha-Delatorre, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-07-201263, HONORABLE CLIFFORD BROWN, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Ruben Rocha-Delatorre seeks to appeal a judgment of conviction for

possession of a controlled substance. See Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.115(b). The trial court

has certified that (1) this is a plea-bargain case and Rocha-Delatorre has no right of appeal, and

(2) Rocha-Delatorre has waived the right of appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want

of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).

__________________________________________

Scott K. Field, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: March 27, 2015

Do Not Publish
# " P e r f ec t S t or m"

S h u t s C a m i no

S a w m i ll

8 : 1 8 P M

, J un 1 1

, 2 0 0 9 | c o m m e n ts

C A M I N O

, C A

- A

f t er m o r e t h a n a c e n t u r y of

o p era t i o n

, t h e S i er r a P a c i f i c s a w mi ll in

C a m i n o f e l l s i l e n t T h u r s d a y m or n i ng,

pu t t i ng 1 6 0 m i ll e m p l o y ee s o u t o f w or k.

C o m p a n y s p o k e s m a n M a r k L u s t er b l a m ed

t h e m i l l ' s s h u t d o w n o n t h e c o m b i n a t i o n of

r e d u c e d d e m a n d f r o m t h e bu i l d i ng

i n d u s t r y a nd r e du c e d s up p l y o f t im b er

f ro m t h e U .S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e.

" I t ' s t h e p er f e c t s t o r m

, " L u s t e r s a i d f r o m t he

e dg e o f a n ear l y -e m p t y t i m b er

d e c k

. L u s t er s a i d t h e s up p l y o f t re e s f rom

n a t i o n a l f ore s t l a nd h a d b ee n c h o k e d o ff

b y n e a r l y h a l f d u e t o e n v i r o n m e n t al

l i t i g a t i o n.

L u s t er p o i n t e d o u t t h e i ro n y t h a t t he

e n v i ro n m e n t a l r o a d b l o ck s w i l l n o w l ea d to

h ar v e s t e d t i m b er b e i ng t r u c k e d t o m i lls

o u t s i d e o f E l D ora d o C o un t y.

R e p

. T o m M c C l i n t o ck

, ( R) G r a n i t e B a y

, s a id

C a m i n o n o w j o i n s Q u i n c y a nd S o n o r a as m o un t a i n t o w n s t h a t h a v e e a c h r e c e n t l y l o st

150 d i re c t a nd 35 0 i n d i re c t j o b s du e to

l i t i g a t i o n o v er f ore s t

- t h i n n i ng o p era t i o n s.

T h e C a m i n o m i l l c l o s ur e " i s o n e m o r e b l ow

t o h a r d -wor k i ng m i dd l e c l a s s C a l i f or n i a n s ,"

M c C l i n t o c k s a i d i n a p r e p are d s t a t e m e n t.

" I t ' s p re t t y d e v a s t a t i n g t o s e e t h i s

, " s a id

S c o tt A n d er s e n

, w h o h a d w o r k e d a t t he

s a w m i l l f o r 2 5 y ear s

. " T o f i n d a

r e p l a c e m e n t i n c o m e t h a t S i e r ra P a c i f ic

p r o v i d e d i n E l D o r a d o C o un t y i s g o i ng t o be

v er y d i ff i c u l t ."

S i e r ra P a c i f i c w a s t a k i ng s t e p s t o m o t hb a ll

t h e m i l l i n h o p e s o f reo p e n i ng w h e n a nd if

t h e e c o n o m y a nd t im b e r s u pp l y im pr o v e.

" We 'r e g o i n g t o k e e p t h i s s a w m i l l i n t a c t ,"

L u s t er s a i d

. " We ' re g o i ng t o k ee p t he

c h a i n s o i l e d a n d m a c h i n e r y o p era t i o n al

w i t h t h e h o p e w e ' ll g e t s o m e r e l i e f ."

K X T V / N e w s 10

S e l e c t e d f o r y o u b y a s p o n s o r : U n d e r c o v e r C op

A d v e r t i s e m e nt W r i t t e n by

G e o r g e W a r r en

F I L E D UN D ER

N e ws

Lo c a l N e ws F or m a t D yn a m ic s : : C l e a n

P r i n t : : h t t p : / / w w w

. n

e ws 10

. n e t / n e ws / l o c a l/

. .. h tt p : / / ww w

. n e ws 1 0

. n e t /clea n p r i n t /? u n i q u e = 130 9 55328 5 266

1 o f 2
# NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA
RE: Docket Number 2020 - CA -1318 St. Francisville BK, L.L.C. Versus - - JEC Real Estate Investment, LLC, Delta Bank, Darryl J. Ellerbee, James Rex Fair, Jr., T. Taylor Townsend, and CNA 

### Insurance Company

On Application for 

### Rehearing 20th Judicial District Court Case #: 23164 West Feliciana Parish



### filed on 03/09/2022 by StarNet Insurance Company


# vI? cAfa Wayne Ray Chutz 

# MAR 2 2 2022
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Repp ,

__ Ohio St.3d

__ , 20 2 2

- Ohio

- 4239 .]

D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . R EPP . [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Repp ,

__ Ohio St.3d

__ , 20 2 2

- Ohio

- 4239 .] (No. 20 2 1

- 0757

— Submitted November 28 , 202 2

— Decided November 29
, 20 2 2 .)

O N A PPLICATION FOR R EINSTATEMENT

.

__________________ __ {¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Judge Mark Edward Repp, Attorney Registration No. 0058853, last known business address in Tiffin, Ohio. {¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its or der of November 9, 2021, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3), suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year, finds that respondent has complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(24)

. {¶ 3} Theref

ore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the s tate of Ohio. {¶ 4} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(E)(1) and that publicati on be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(E)(2). {¶ 5} For previous case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Repp , 165 Ohio St.3d 582, 2021

- Ohio

- 3923, 180 N.E.3d 1128.
O ’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , S TEWART , and B RUNNER , JJ., concur.

_______________ __