alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4103-4106]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01445]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control


Notice of OFAC Sanctions Action

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of three individuals and one 
entity that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals 
and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on

[[Page 4104]]

OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were 
satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. 
jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are 
generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for applicable date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Andrea Gacki, Director, tel.: 
202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-
2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant 
Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the Assistant 
Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability

    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions 
programs are available on OFAC's website (https://www.treasury.gov/ofac).

Notice of OFAC Action

    On January 11, 2022, OFAC determined that the property and 
interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following 
persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed 
below.

[[Page 4105]]

Individuals

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA22.000


[[Page 4106]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA22.001


    Dated: January 18, 2022.
Andrea M. Gacki,
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the 
Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2022-01445 Filed 1-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

BRANDI L. MOORE, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. Case No.: 2:18-cv-511

JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH

Magistrate Judge Deavers

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 

Defendant. 

 

ORDER

This case is before the Court to consider the Report and Recommendation issued by the

Magistrate Judge on August 1, 2019. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s

Statement of Errors be overruled and that the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision be

affirmed. (Doc. 20). This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objection to the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 21). The Court will consider the matter

de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

Plaintiff raises one primary objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation–that the ALJ’S Mental Residual Functional Capacity is not supported by

substantial evidence. Specifically, Plaintiff disagrees with the amount of weight given to Dr.

Bretz’s (the state agency psychological consultant) opinions by the ALJ and the ALJ’s failure to

properly explain the reasoning behind the conclusion. 

This objection presents the same issue presented to, and carefully considered by the

Magistrate Judge in the Statement of Errors. Plaintiff merely disagrees with the Magistrate
Judge’s findings. The Magistrate Judge concluded that substantial evidence demonstrates that

the ALJ’s RFC adequately accounted for all of the limitations that he found credible. Therefore,

for the reasons stated in the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that

Plaintiff’s objection is without merit.

Based on the aforementioned and the detailed Report and Recommendation, the Court

finds that Plaintiff’s objection has been thoroughly considered and is hereby OVERRULED. 

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation, Document 20, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. 

The Clerk shall remove Documents 20 and 21 from the Court’s pending motions list and

enter final judgment in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ George C. Smith 

 GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-
Exhibit
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-KSB of Sinoenergy Corporation
      (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bo
      Huang, the Chief Executive Officer, and I, Qiong (Laby) Wu, the Chief Financial
      Officer, of the Company, do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
      adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
      knowledge and belief that:




(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.


November
                  14, 2006
                
                /s/ Bo
                  HuangBo
                        Huang
                      Chief
                        Executive Officer




November
                  14, 2006
                
                /s/Qiong
                  (Laby) WuQiong
                        (Laby) Wu
                      Chief
                        Financial Officer
#### ACME FINISHING CO., Inc., a Corporation of the State of New York, v. ROBERTSON BROTHERS, INC., a Corporation of the State of New Jersey and A. W. Robertson, Appellants.

No. 15069.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued March 17, 1965.

Decided April 8, 1965.

Donald M. Waesche, Englewood, N. J. (William V. Breslin, Englewood, N. J., on the brief), for appellants.

John T. Dolan and Crummy, Gibbons & O’Neill, Newark, N. J., for appellee.

Before McLAUGHLIN, HASTIE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM,

This case was tried to the court. There is ample evidence in the trial record before us fully justifying the district court’s decision that the defendants by *802means of their fraud and deceit sold the type gathering machine involved to the plaintiff.

Specifically, there was substantial trial evidence that defendants, knowing their machine to be a second hand 12" x 16", orally and in writing misrepresented it to the plaintiff as a second hand 9" x 12" with the intention that plaintiff rely on such statement; that plaintiff was solely interested in purchasing a 9" x 12" machine to defendants’ knowledge; that plaintiff, not knowing or having reason to know that defendants’ said representations were false, reasonably relied on them in its purchase of said machine from defendants; that said misrepresentations were most material; that the Sheridan Company, which had manufactured the machine, was employed by plaintiff to adjust the machine, if possible, to plaintiff’s needs; that the Sheridan Company later advised plaintiff that it believed the machine was a 12" x 16"; that plaintiff passed that information to defendants who assured it that the Sheridan information was incorrect and had described the machine as a 12" x 16" only because that company was interested in selling new machines; that plaintiff accepted defendants’ explanation and their suggestion of a particular expert to adjust the machine; that finally, when the machine still failed to function properly and plaintiff was again advised by the manufacturer that the machine was a 12" x 16", plaintiff notified defendants that they had misled it and stopped further installment payments.

The court in granting plaintiff recision of the contract, found in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants for that part of the purchase price plaintiff had paid defendants and for plaintiff’s actual shipping costs and the amounts it had expended for various repair and attempted adjustment work to the machine plus interest on said sums.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed on the opinion of Judge Coolahan in that court.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-3436

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Timothy S. Reed

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin

____________

Submitted: January 14, 2019

Filed: January 25, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Reed directly appeals the sentence the district court imposed after he 1

pleaded guilty to a firearm offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a

The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Missouri.
supplemental brief submitted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

suggests that the district court improperly applied U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) to

calculate Reed’s advisory Guidelines range. We conclude that the district court did

not rely on any clearly erroneous facts when it determined that Reed possessed the

firearm in connection with another felony offense, and that the court’s application of

section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) was therefore proper. See United States v. Brooks, 648 F.3d

626, 629 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (providing standard of review). Having

independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find

no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw and affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,063,609
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  137,817
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    572,995
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       4,603,574
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,377,995
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,314,177
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,377,995
<SALES>                                        258,858
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,256,842
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  941,461
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                71,302
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                75,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              68,467
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                315,380
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            315,380
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   315,380
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.19


</TABLE>
#### *In re*Fisher Estate (Fisher v Silver),

No. 91045;

Court of Appeals No. 114002. Reconsideration denied November 25,1991.
<PAGE>



FRONTIER INSURANCE GROUP, INC.            1996 FORM 10-K              EXHIBIT 12





                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                 (in thousands, except per share dollar amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               Year Ended December 31
                                                  -------------------------------------------------
                                                   1996      1995       1994      1993       1992
                                                  ------    -------    -------   -------    -------
<S>                                               <C>        <C>        <C>       <C>        <C>   
Income before income taxes
  and cumulative effect of change
  in accounting principle                         56,659     43,280     21,330    30,293     25,198

Add:

  Minority Interest and interest expense           4,247        895
  Net amortization of debt issuance costs             39
  Interest portion of rental expense                 371        240

Earnings available for payment of combined
  fixed charges and preferred stock dividends     61,316     44,415     21,330    30,293     25,198

Combined fixed charges:

  Minority Interest and interest expense           4,247        895
  Net amortization of debt issuance costs             39
  Interest portion of debt issuance costs            371        240

Total Combined fixed charges                       4,657      1,135

Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges (1)     13.2       39.1        N/A       N/A        N/A

</TABLE>

(1)  For purposes of determining  this ratio,  earnings consist of income before
     federal  income taxes,  cumulative  effect of accounting  change plus fixed
     charges. Fixed Charges consist of 1) minority interest-preferred securities
     of  subsidiary  trust,  and interest  expense on  short-term  debt,  2) net
     amortization  of debt issuance  costs and 3) the portion of rental  expense
     that is representative of the interest factor.



<PAGE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

KEVIN JACKSON, : Case No. 3:18-cv-159
Plaintiff, : District Judge Walter H. Rice
: Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

DECISION AND ENTRY

This case is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulation for an Award of
Attorney Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Doc.
#19). Specifically, the parties stipulate to an award to Plaintiff of attorney fees in the
amount of $3,700.00 in full satisfaction and settlement of any and all claims Plaintiff
may have under the EAJA in the above case. The award of attorney fees will satisfy
all of Plaintiff's claims for fees, costs, and expenses under 28 U.S.C. § 2412 in this
case. Any fees paid belong to Plaintiff, and not his attorney, and can be offset to
satisfy pre-existing debt that Plaintiff owes the United States under Astrue v. Ratliff,

560 U.S. 586 (2010).

After the Court enters this award, if counsel for the parties can verify that
Plaintiff owes no pre-existing debt subject to offset, Defendant agrees to direct that the

award be made payable to Plaintiffs attorney pursuant to the EAJA assignment duly


signed by Plaintiff and counsel.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. The Parties’ Joint Stipulation for an Award of Attorney Fees
under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. #19) is accepted
and Defendant shall pay Plaintiff's attorney fees, costs, and
expenses in the total amount of $3,700.00;

2. Counsel for the parties shall verify, within thirty days of this
Decision and Entry, whether or not Plaintiff owes a pre-
existing debt to the United States subject to offset. If no such
pre-existing debt exists, Defendant shall pay the EAJA award
directly to Plaintiffs counsel pursuant to the EAJA assignment
signed by Plaintiff and counsel; and

3. The case remains terminated on the docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
on GL sig

Walter H. Rice
United States District Judge
|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 of Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Joseph P. Caruso, and I,
Paul S. Weiner certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to our 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.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|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.
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                                      | 
|------------------------------------- | 
|Dated: August 3, 2007                 | 
|                                      | 
|                                      | 
|By:/s/ Joseph P. Caruso               | 
|Joseph P. Caruso                      | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer | 
|                                      | 

|                        | 
|----------------------- | 
|Dated: August 3, 2007   | 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|By:/s/ Paul S. Weiner   | 
|Paul S. Weiner          | 
|Chief Financial Officer | 
|                        | 

|
|
EXHIBIT 32



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 Cross Timbers Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its
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 Trust.



|              |  |                                                                |  |                    
|------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|              |  | Bank of America, N.A., Trustee for Cross Timbers Royalty Trust
|              |  |                                                               
|July 16, 2004 |  | By                                                             |  | /s/ NANCY G. WILLIS
|              |  |                                                                |  | Nancy G. Willis    
|              |  |                                                                |  | Vice President
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50150

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BALDEMAR SANTANA-CORONADO, also known as Baldemar Santana, also 

known as Baldemar Coronado-Santana, also known as Baldemar Coronado 

Santana, also known as Baldemar Coronado, also known as Jose CruzRubalcava, also known as Jose Cruz Rubalcava,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:16-CR-415-1

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Baldemar SantanaCoronado has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Santana-Coronado has not filed a response. We have 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 20, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50150 Document: 00514355062 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2018
No. 17-50150

2

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-50150 Document: 00514355062 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2018
Exhibit 23 (ii)

To the Board of Directors

General Electric Capital Services, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement (No. 33-7348) on Form S-3 of General Electric Capital Services, Inc.,of our report dated February 6, 2004, relating to the statement of financialposition of General Electric Capital Services, Inc. and consolidated affiliatesas of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related statements of earnings,changes in shareowner's equity and cash flows for each of the years in thethree-year period ended December 31, 2003, and related schedules, which reportappears in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of General ElectricCapital Services, Inc. Our report refers to a change in the method of accountingin 2003 for variable interest entities, a change in the method of accounting in2002 for goodwill and other intangible assets and changes in the methods ofaccounting in 2001 for derivative instruments and hedging activities andimpairment of certain beneficial interests in securitized assets.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Stamford, Connecticut

March 1, 2004