alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 12867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5095]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as a 
Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of Camin Cargo Control, 
Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, Camin Cargo Control, Inc., 1301 Metropolitan Ave., 
Thorofare, NJ 08086, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test 
petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils 
for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 
151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to 
conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and 
receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or 
approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the 
specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries 
regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited 
or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#56353426783a37343e2716323e2578313920"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="325150421c5e53505a4372565a411c555d44">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web site listed below for a 
complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.

http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_svcs/commercial_gaugers/

DATES: The accreditation and approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as 
commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on September 20, 
2011. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for 
September 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Cassata, Laboratories and 
Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-
1060.

    Dated: February 21, 2012.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 2012-5095 Filed 3-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In the Matter of Eugene Copeland, Respondent, v New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Evans, J.), entered June 29, 1990, which granted plaintiff’s motion to serve a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was arrested on June 3, 1989, by a Housing Authority Police officer for driving while intoxicated. While the officer allegedly complied with proper procedure by parking plaintiff’s vehicle on the public street, plaintiff alleges that he was neither advised of the location of the vehicle, nor given the keys. The vehicle was never located. Seeking recovery for the value of his car, plaintiff mistakenly served a notice of claim on the City of New York on August 29, 1989. In March 1990, after the City rejected the claim on the ground that it was not a proper party, plaintiff moved for leave to serve a late notice of claim on the defendant Housing Authority. The IAS court granted the motion, and defendant appeals.

The IAS court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion (General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; *see generally, Rodriguez v City of New York,*86 AD2d 533, *appeal dismissed*58 NY2d 899). While it is true that law office failure is not a sufficient excuse for failure to timely file a notice of claim *(Chattergoon v New York City Hous. Auth.,*161 AD2d 141, *appeal dismissed*76 NY2d 875), plaintiff’s counsel’s error was made in a good faith belief that plaintiff had been arrested by New York City Police officers. Notice of the underlying facts was acquired by virtue of the various arrest reports filed by *336the officer *(Venezian v City of New York,*172 AD2d 251). We further note that defendant does not contend that it was prejudiced by virtue of the untimely notice. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Kupferman, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7161
NEHEMIAH POPE, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus FRANKLIN FREEMAN; TOM MARTIN, Warden, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-97-162-H) Submitted: November 12, 1997 Decided: December 11, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nehemiah Pope, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Nehemiah Pope, Jr. appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). In 1994, Pope was convicted of second degree murderin North Carolina state court and sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment for the shooting death of Deputy Sheriff Futrell. See State v. Pope , 468 S.E.2d 552 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996). In his petition,Pope claims that the trial judge erred by: (1) finding as an aggravating factor at sentencing that the offense was committed againsta law enforcement officer while in the performance of his employment; (2) commenting on the evidence; and (3) allowing the State to impeach Pope with extrinsic evidence. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation to dismiss the petition. In his memorandum and recommendation, the magistrate judge concluded that claims (1) and (3) were procedurally barred and claim (2) failed on the merits. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion adopting the magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an

Diane M . Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

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

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

_________________________________________ Clerk September 4, 2012

d0827 

# Order

September 4, 2012

144331

- 3

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144331

- 3

COA: 299684; 299716; 299717

Ingham CC: 09

- 001331

- FH;

WAYLAND LYNN DILTS, 09

- 001265

- FC; 09

- 001332

- FC

Defendant

- Appellant.

______________ ___________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 8, 2011

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

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

C AVANAGH , J. , would grant leave to appeal.
Exhibit 32



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, Vincent Verdiramo, President of Serino 2, Corp. (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:



1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended July 31, 2005 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



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

Date:  September 14, 2005

/s/ Vincent L. Verdiramo

___________________________



President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0221 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. GARY WAYNE TEMPLE, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing, Court Reporter Sheena Jendro Cobb is granted an extension of time to and including May 19, 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested on appeal. No further extensions will be granted. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 29 2021

03/29/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0221
Exhibit
32.1



CERTIFICATIONS
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 Cynapsus Therapeutics Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2016 (the “Report”),
the undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively,
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 their knowledge:



1.         the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: May 11, 2016 | By: | /s/ Anthony Giovinazzo                              | 
|------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------- | 
|                    |     | Anthony Giovinazzo                                  | 
|                    |     | President and Chief Executive Officer               | 
|                    |     | (principal executive officer)                       | 
|                    |     |                                                     | 
|Dated: May 11, 2016 | By: | /s/ Andrew Williams                                 | 
|                    |     | Andrew Williams                                     | 
|                    |     | Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer | 
|                    |     | (principal financial officer)                       | 



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed
form within the electronic version 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 12.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Ping Shen, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on
Form 20-F of Globetech Ventures Corp.;

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

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

4. The registrant's other certifying
officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for
the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and
procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days
prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date");
and

c) presented in this annual report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures
based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying
officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the
design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and
have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying
officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

|/s/ Ping Shen           | 
|----------------------- | 
|Ping Shen               | 
|Chief Financial Officer | 
|April 1, 2008           | 

---
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 Report on Form 10-Q of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (“Seattle Bank”) for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven R. Horton, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 Seattle Bank.







Date:  May 12, 2011





Federal Home Loan Bank of SeattleBy:/s/ Steven R. HortonSteven R. HortonActing President and Chief Executive Officer
Concurring memorandum opinion issued April 12, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00925-CR

———————————

EX PARTE TERRY LYNN SPIES, Appellant

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1343443-A

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM OPINION

I join the court’s holding that Terry Lynn Spies failed to preserve error on any 

legal argument that section 33.021(c) of the Texas Penal Code is unconstitutional as 

applied to him. Not only did Spies fail to present any substantive legal argument to 

the trial court, he also failed to present an adequate brief including a legal argument 

to this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1, 38.1(i).
2

For precisely that reason, I would not go further to address the merits of the 

constitutionality of section 33.021(c) by attempting to distinguish it from section 

33.021(b) and the holdings in Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), 

and Ex parte Chance, 439 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (mem.). See 

VanDevender v. Woods, 222 S.W.3d 430, 433 (Tex. 2007) (noting “the cardinal 

principle of judicial restraint—if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary 

not to decide more”).

Michael Massengale

Justice 

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Lloyd.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6754

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KELVIN JEROD HOLMAN, a/k/a J-Five,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (5:04-cr-00964-MBS-2)

Submitted: October 31, 2019 Decided: November 5, 2019

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin Jerod Holman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin Jerod Holman appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a 

sentence reduction pursuant to section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 (“First Step Act”), 

Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222, which permits a district court to impose 

a reduced sentence for defendants convicted of covered offenses as if certain provisions of 

the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”), Pub. L. No. 111-220, §§ 2-3, 124 Stat. 2372, 

2372, were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed. To qualify as a covered 

offense under the First Step Act, the conviction at issue had to have been modified by 

Section 2 or 3 of the FSA.

Holman pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 

5 kilograms or more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). Although Section 2 of the FSA increased the 

drug quantities necessary to trigger the mandatory minimum sentences in 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(b)(1) for crack cocaine offenses, it “left the statutory minimum sentences for powder 

cocaine in place.” United States v. Black, 737 F.3d 280, 282 (4th Cir. 2013). Because the 

First Step Act did not alter Holman’s statutory sentencing range, we affirm the district 

court’s denial of relief. 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
EXHIBIT 12

                          MINN DAK FARMERS COOPERATIVE
              COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF NET PROCEEDS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Year Ended August 31,
                                                             ---------------------

                                                  2002      2001      2000      1999      1998
<S>                                             <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
     Earnings:
     Net proceeds before income taxes from      84,224    94,620    86,604    63,352    72,084
     continuing operations
     Fixed charges, excluding capitalized        3,742     4,920     5,199     5,264     5,372
     interest, see below
     Amortization of capitalized interest           94        94        94        94        92
                                                ------    ------    ------    ------    ------

          Net Proceeds                          88,060    99,634    91,897    68,720    77,548
                                                ======    ======    ======    ======    ======


     Fixed Charges:
     Interest Expense                            3,742     4,920     5,199     5,264     5,372
     Interest factor included in rentals (1)         0         0         0         0         0
                                                ------    ------    ------    ------    ------

     Fixed charges, excluding capitalized
     interest                                    3,742     4,920     5,199     5,264     5,372
          Interest capitalized                       9         0         0         0       199
                                                ------    ------    ------    ------    ------
     Fixed Charges                               3,751     4,920     5,199     5,264     5,571
                                                ======    ======    ======    ======    ======

     Ratio of net proceeds to fixed charges      23.48     20.25     17.68     13.05     13.92
                                                ======    ======    ======    ======    ======
</TABLE>

(1)      The company does lease certain items, such as office equipment. Due to
         the proportionately small amounts involved, interest on such lease
         payments has not been included in the total of the company's fixed
         charges of the calculation of this ratio.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51533-51534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20882]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9720-5]

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Notification of Public Advisory 
Committee Teleconference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification of Public Advisory Committee Teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, notice is hereby given that the Good Neighbor Environmental Board 
(GNEB) will hold a public teleconference on September 6, 2012 from 2 
p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The meeting is open to the 
public. For further information regarding the teleconference and 
background materials, please contact Mark Joyce at the number listed 
below. Due to logistical complications, EPA is announcing this 
teleconference with less than 15 days public notice.
    Background: GNEB is a federal advisory committee chartered under 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463. GNEB provides 
advice and recommendations to the President and Congress on 
environmental and infrastructure issues along the U.S. border with 
Mexico.
    Purpose of Meeting: The purpose of this teleconference is to 
discuss and approve the Good Neighbor Environmental Board's Fifteenth 
Report, which focuses on water infrastructure issues in the U.S.-Mexico 
border region.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you wish to make oral comments or submit 
written comments to the Board, please contact Mark Joyce at least five 
days prior to the meeting.
    General Information: Additional information concerning the GNEB can 
be found on its Web site at www.epa.gov/ofacmo/gneb.
    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for 
individuals with disabilities, please contact Mark Joyce at (202) 564-
2130 or email at joyce.mark@epa.gov. To request accommodation of a 
disability, please contact Mark Joyce at least 10 days prior

[[Page 51534]]

to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your 
request.

    Dated: August 20, 2012.
Mark Joyce,
Acting Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-20882 Filed 8-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```