alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 71195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30335]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Submit comments on or before December 29, 2000. If you intend to 
comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB 
Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.

COPIES: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency 
Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 
3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance 
Officer, (202) 205-7044.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Secondary Participation Guaranty Agreement.
    No: 1086.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Description of Respondents: Participating Lenders used these forms 
to apply for initial issuance of an SBA Guarantee Interest Certificate.
    Annual Responses: 12,500.
    Annual Burden: 46,875.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. 00-30335 Filed 11-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# Official Journal C 34A/31 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 34A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6131 January 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 34A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6131 January 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Corrigenda |
| 2018/C 34 A/01 | Corrigendum to notice of open competitions — EPSO/AD/354/17 — Latvian-language (LV) lawyer-linguists (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/355/17 — Maltese-language (MT) lawyer-linguists (AD 7) ( OJ C 418 A, 7.12.2017 ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

Corrigenda

2018/C 34 A/01

Corrigendum to notice of open competitions — EPSO/AD/354/17 — Latvian-language (LV) lawyer-linguists (AD 7) — EPSO/AD/355/17 — Maltese-language (MT) lawyer-linguists (AD 7) ( OJ C 418 A, 7.12.2017 )

( OJ C 418 A, 7.12.2017 )

1

---

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

EN

---

Corrigenda

| 31.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 34/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 34/1

---

Corrigendum to notice of open competitions

EPSO/AD/354/17 — Latvian-language (LV) lawyer-linguists (AD 7)

EPSO/AD/355/17 — Maltese-language (MT) lawyer-linguists (AD 7)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 418 A of 7 December 2017
  )

(2018/C 034 A/01)

On page 1:

for

‘
  Deadline for registration: 16 January 2018 at 12.00 (midday), CET
  ’,

read:

read:

‘
  Deadline for registration: 30 January 2018 at 12.00 (midday), CET
  ’;

on page 5:

on page 5:

for:

for:

‘WHEN AND WHERE CAN I APPLY?

Apply online on the EPSO website http://jobs.eu-careers.eu by:

16 January 2018 at 12.00 (midday), CET
  ’,

read:

read:

‘WHEN AND WHERE CAN I APPLY?

Apply online on the EPSO website http://jobs.eu-careers.eu by:

30 January 2018 at 12.00 (midday), CET
  ’

---
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

I, David Lieberman, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
Officer of Advanced Plant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company"), certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter
      ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
      U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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 20, 2005


/s/ David Lieberman
---------------------------
David Lieberman
Chief Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1390 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1390

           To award a congressional gold medal to Lou Rawls.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 1993

 Mr. Waxman (for himself and Mrs. Collins of Illinois) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Finance 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To award a congressional gold medal to Lou Rawls.

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds that--
            (1) Lou Rawls is a stellar entertainer and committed 
        humanitarian;
            (2) Lou Rawls is unsurpassed in his work to advance the 
        cause of educational opportunities for African Americans;
            (3) Lou Rawls organizes and hosts the annual ``Lou Rawls 
        Parade of Stars'' telethon for the United Negro College Fund 
        which has raised more than $10,000,000 for such Fund and 
        provides approximately 20 percent of the annual revenues of the 
        Fund; and
            (4) since the United Negro College Fund benefits more than 
        50,000 students attending historically black colleges, the 
        tireless efforts of Lou Rawls have helped thousands of young 
        people to realize their educational dreams.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.

    (a) Presentation Authorized.--The President is authorized to 
present, on behalf of the Congress, to Lou Rawls, a gold medal of 
appropriate design, in recognition of his work on behalf of educational 
opportunities for African Americans.
    (b) Design and Striking.--For purposes of the presentation referred 
to in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury shall strike a gold 
medal with suitable emblems, devices, and inscriptions to be determined 
by the Secretary.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriation.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated not to exceed $20,000 to carry out this section.

SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS.

    (a) Striking and Sale.--The Secretary of the Treasury may strike 
and sell duplicates in bronze of the gold medal struck pursuant to 
section 2 under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, at a 
price sufficient to cover the cost of such duplicates, including labor, 
materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and the cost 
of the gold medal.
    (b) Reimbursement of Appropriation.--The appropriation used to 
carry out section 2 shall be reimbursed out of the proceeds of sales 
under subsection (a).

SEC. 4. NATIONAL MEDALS.

    The medals struck pursuant to this Act are national medals for 
purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code.

                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________
No. 98-41045 Summary Calendar

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CRAIG BROUGHTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

(1:98-CR-7-1)

_________________________________________________________________ March 23, 1999

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Claiming insufficient evidence, Craig Broughton appeals his

conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

The evidence presented by the Governmen t at trial included

testimony and a videotape concerning Broughton paying $900 for two

ounces of cocaine base, being “fronted” four more ounces, and

picking up the bag containing the cocaine base. Other testimony

included the amount of cocaine base being consistent with intent to

distribute. Broughton testified that he had previously beencon victed for possession of a controlled substance; and that he

inspected the cocaine base to determine its quality for another

person.

Based on the above-described evidence, we conclu de that the

Government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Broughton

knowingly possessed the cocaine base with intent to distribute.

See, e.g., United States v. Posada-Rios
, 158 F.3d 832, 855 (5th

Cir. 1998), petition for cert. filed (U.S. 16 Feb. 1999) (No. 98-

8140); United States v. Jones , 133 F.3d 358, 362 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied
,

___ U.S. ___, 118 S. Ct. 1854 (1998). The jury was

entitled to r eject Broughton’s testimony that he intended to

purchase stereo equipment rather than cocaine base. S ee United

States v. Kelley , 140 F.3d 596, 607 (5th Cir.), cert. denied
, ___ U.S. ___, 119 S. Ct. 247 (1998).

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of Mark T., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Virginia Yancey, J.), entered December 15, 1989, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent and placed him with the Division for Youth for a period of 14 months after a fact-finding determination that he committed acts which, if done by an adult, would constitute the crime of grand larceny in the fourth degree, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant and two others approached Keith Francis and Victor Mercado, 11th grade students, on the street. One of appellant’s accomplices asked Keith if he had any money, while appellant held Victor in a chokehold. Keith handed over his wallet to appellant’s accomplice.

The issue on appeal is whether appellant could be lawfully convicted of grand larceny in the fourth degree in view of the fact that he was acquitted of robbery. A verdict is inconsistent where acquittal on one crime is conclusive as to a necessary element of the other crime for which defendant was found guilty. *(People v Goodfriend,*64 NY2d 695, 697.) A necessary element of robbery is the use or threatened use of physical *219force, which is not an element of grand larceny. Speculation contained in the briefs as to the thought processes of the trier of fact is unwarranted *(People v Goodfriend, supra,*at 697). Concur — Ross, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1129 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide an annual grant to 

facilitate an iron working training program for Native Americans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2009 

Mr. LYNCH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide an 

annual grant to facilitate an iron working training program for Native Americans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. IRON WORKING TRAINING PROGRAM FOR NA4 TIVE AMERICANS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—To the extent funds are made 

6 available for this purpose, the Secretary of the Interior, 

7 acting through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, shall annu8 ally provide a grant to an eligible entity to provide an iron 

9 working training program for members of federally recog10 nized Indian tribes. An eligible entity that receives a grant 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1129 IH

1 under this section shall provide a program that meets the 

2 requirements of subsection (b) and may require such other 

3 criteria of the program and participants of the program 

4 as the eligible entity considers appropriate to further the 

5 goals of the program. 

6 (b) REQUIREMENTS.—A program funded by a grant 

7 under this section shall— 

8 (1) provide specialized training in iron working 

9 skills to adult members of federally recognized In10 dian tribes; 

11 (2) provide classroom and on-the-job training; 

12 and 

13 (3) facilitate job placement for participants 

14 upon successful completion of the requirements of 

15 the program. 

16 (c) ELIGIBLE ENTITY.—To be eligible for a grant 

17 under this section, an entity shall— 

18 (1) have proven experience in providing success19 ful iron working training programs to Native Amer20 ican populations; and 

21 (2) have the facilities necessary to carry out 

22 such a program with a grant provided under this 

23 section. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
#### Empire Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Richard Mariotti, Appellant, v Dawn Marquez, Respondent.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Harlem, J.), entered January 29, 1990 in Otsego County, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Plaintiff, as subrogee on a claim, sought to recover damages caused by fire to realty owned by its insured at 19 Franklin Street in the City of Oneonta, Otsego County. A process server unsuccessfully attempted to personally serve defendant at her place of abode on August 10, 17, 24 and September 2, 1988. On this last date, the process server wedged a copy of the summons and complaint between the locked screen door and inner door of the residence and, on September 7, 1988, mailed a copy of the papers enclosed in a postpaid wrapper addressed to defendant at her residence. Defendant denies ever receiving such mail. Defendant’s answer, served on February 8, 1989, alleged as an affirmative defense a lack of personal jurisdiction. Thereafter, defendant moved for summary judgment upon the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction because of plaintiff’s failure to comply with the provisions of CPLR 308 (4). Supreme Court granted the motion. This appeal by plaintiff ensued.

CPLR 308 (4) provides that if personal service of the summons upon the defendant cannot be accomplished under CPLR 308 (1) or (2) with "due diligence”, then service may be effected "by affixing the summons to the door of either the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode within the state of the person to be served and by * * * mailing the summons to such person at his or her last known address”. As we previously observed in *PacAmOr Bearings v*
      *811
      *Foley*(92 AD2d 959, 960), "[t]he affixing of a summons to the door is to be accomplished by use of a nail, tack, tape, rubber band or some other device which will ensure a genuine adherence”. Further, it is the plaintiff who bears the burden of establishing that personal jurisdiction over defendant was obtained *(see, Bernardo v Barrett,*87 AD2d 832, 833, *affd*57 NY2d 1006).

Here, plaintiff concedes in its brief that when the process server was unable to find anyone at home on September 2, 1988, a copy of the summons and complaint was wedged in the door frame of the locked screen door and that he did not tape, tack or nail the summons to the locked door. This type of service without the use of tape or other device simply is not an affixation within the meaning of CPLR 308 (4) *(see, Steltzer v Eason,*131 AD2d 833, 834). Indeed, in *Werner v Schweit*(138 AD2d 592) the Second Department held "that the mere slipping of the papers between the screen door and the doorjamb was not a proper 'affixing’ as required by the statute” *(see also, Van Raalte v Metz,*161 AD2d 760 [2d Dept]). Accordingly, summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted.

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mercure, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 231 (Thursday, November 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 71309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30489]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC01-27-000]


Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation; Niagara Mohawk Power 
Corporation; Notice of Filing

November 24, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 17, 2000, Rochester Gas and Electric 
Corporation (RG&E) and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (Niagara 
Mohawk) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (Commission) an Application pursuant to Section 203 of the 
Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 824b, for authority to transfer 
ownership of a substation from RG&E to Niagara Mohawk. RG&E and Niagara 
Mohawk request that the Commission expeditiously review this 
Application and issue an order granting authority for the proposed 
disposition by December 29, 2000.
    A copy of this Application was served on the New York Public 
Service Commission.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest 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). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before December 8, 2000. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically 
via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and 
the instructions on the Commission's web site at
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30489 Filed 11-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2301

IBRAHIM SAID OMAR,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A78-151-868)

Submitted: April 9, 2004 Decided: April 29, 2004

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey B. Elikan, Mark D. Maneche, VENABLE, L.L.P., Baltimore,

Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney

General, Michael Jay Singer, Matthew M. Collette, Civil Division,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ibrahim Said Omar, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,

seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(Board) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s denial of

his application for asylum. We have reviewed the administrative

record and the immigration judge’s decision, designated by the

Board as the final agency determination, and find that substantial

evidence supports the immigration judge’s conclusion that Omar

failed to establish the past persecution or well-founded fear of

future persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum.

See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2003) (stating that the burden of proof

is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (same). We will reverse the

Board only if the evidence “‘was so compelling that no reasonable

fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’”

Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84). We find no such compelling

evidence. 

We deny Omar’s petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1084 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 16, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation 

AN ACT 

To require the Federal Communications Commission to prescribe a standard to preclude commercials from being 

broadcast at louder volumes than the program material 

they accompany. 

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


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1084 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Commercial Advertise3 ment Loudness Mitigation Act’’ or the ‘‘CALM Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. RULEMAKING ON LOUD COMMERCIALS REQUIRED. 

5 (a) REGULATION REQUIRED.—Within 1 year after 

6 the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Commu7 nications Commission shall prescribe pursuant to the 

8 Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) a 

9 regulation that is limited to incorporating by reference and 

10 making mandatory (subject to any waivers the Commis11 sion may grant pursuant to subsection (b)(2)) the ‘‘Rec12 ommended Practice: Techniques for Establishing and 

13 Maintaining Audio Loudness for Digital Television’’ (A/ 

14 85), and any successor thereto, approved by the Advanced 

15 Television Systems Committee, only insofar as such rec16 ommended practice concerns the transmission of commer17 cial advertisements by a television broadcast station, cable 

18 operator, or other multichannel video programming dis19 tributor. 

20 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.— 

21 (1) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The Federal Commu22 nications Commission shall prescribe that the regula23 tion adopted pursuant to subsection (a) shall become 

24 effective 1 year after the date of its adoption. 

25 (2) WAIVER.—For any television broadcast sta26 tion, cable operator, or other multichannel video proVerDate Nov 24 2008 23:35 Dec 16, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1084.RFS H1084

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 1084 RFS 

1 gramming distributor that demonstrates that obtain2 ing the equipment to comply with the regulation 

3 adopted pursuant to subsection (a) would result in 

4 financial hardship, the Federal Communications 

5 Commission may grant a waiver of the effective date 

6 set forth in paragraph (1) for 1 year and may renew 

7 such waiver for 1 additional year. 

8 (c) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section— 

9 (1) the term ‘‘television broadcast station’’ has 

10 the meaning given such term in section 325 of the 

11 Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325); and 

12 (2) the terms ‘‘cable operator’’ and ‘‘multi13 channel video programming distributor’’ have the 

14 meanings given such terms in section 602 of Com15 munications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 522). 

Passed the House of Representatives December 15, 

2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS