alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02853]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-552-833]


Raw Honey From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in the Less-Than-
Fair-Value Investigation; Correction

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; correction

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Commerce) published notice in the 
Federal Register of January 13, 2022, in which Commerce announced its 
preliminary determination of critical circumstances in the less-than-
fair-value (LTFV) investigation of raw honey from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam). This notice inadvertently omitted the 
cash deposit requirement for entries of raw honey from Vietnam.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Hill or Paola Aleman Ordaz, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3518 or (202) 
482-4031, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of January 13, 2022, the FR Doc 2022-00579, 
on page 2130, in the first column, correct the paragraph under the 
``Suspension of Liquidation,'' caption by adding ``Additionally, for 
such entries, CBP shall require a cash deposit equal to the estimated 
preliminary dumping rates established in the Preliminary Determination. 
This suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further 
notice.'' after the sentence ending in ``. . . which is 90 days prior 
to the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the 
Federal Register.''

Background

    On January 13, 2022, Commerce published in the Federal Register its 
preliminary determination of critical circumstances in the LTFV 
investigation of raw honey from Vietnam.\1\ We inadvertently omitted 
the cash deposit requirement for entries of raw honey from Vietnam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Raw Honey from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 
Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances in 
the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation, 87 FR 2127 (January 13, 
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 
733(f) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 
351.206(c)(2)(ii).

    Dated: February 4, 2022.
Lisa W. Wang,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-02853 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
**Exhibit 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES**

Alliente, Inc. (Delaware) 

Ariba Australia Pty Ltd. (Australia) 

Ariba BelgiumN.V. (Belgium) 

Ariba Canada, Inc. (Canada) 

Ariba (China) Limited (Hong Kong) 

Ariba Czech s.r.o. (Czech Republic) 

Ariba Deutschland GmbH (Germany) 

Ariba France, SAS (France) 

Ariba Holdings, Inc. (Cayman Islands) 

AribaIberia, S.L. (Spain) 

Ariba India Pvt. Ltd. (India) 

Ariba International, Inc. (Delaware) 

Ariba International Holdings, Inc. (Delaware) 

Ariba International Singapore Pte. Ltd. (Singapore) 

Ariba International Sweden AB (Sweden) 

Ariba Investment Company, Inc. (Delaware) 

Ariba Italia Srl (Italy) 

Ariba Singapore Pte. Ltd.(Singapore) 

Ariba Slovak Republic s.r.o. (Slovak Republic) 

Ariba Software Technology Services (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. (China) 

Ariba Switzerland GmbH(Switzerland) 

Ariba Technologies India Private Limited (India) 

Ariba Technologies Ireland Limited (Ireland) 

Ariba Technologies Netherlands B.V. (Netherlands)

Ariba UK Limited (UK) 

FreeMarketsInternational Holding Inc. de Mexico, de S. de R. L. de C. V. (Mexico) 

FreeMarkets Ltda. (Brazil) 

Nihon Ariba KK (Japan) 

Procuri Europe, Ltd (UK)

Surplus Record, Inc. (Delaware) 

Tradex Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
Aaron D. SHARPNACK, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-0356

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION****PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     I, Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr., certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ReGen Biologics, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a — 15(e) and15d — 15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 11, 2006         By:                   /s/ GERALD E. BISBEE, JR.    Name:  Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr.    *Title:*  *President and Chief Executive Officer*
From: Nathaniel Symons <Nathaniel.Symons@newpagecorp.com>

Sent: 2/22/2012 9:55 AM 

To: Stacie Enoch <Stacie.Enoch@erg.com>

Subject: RE: Data Revision Spreadsheet 

Stacie,

If you need any additional information please let me know. I tried to give brief explanations for 

the changes.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chelsea D. EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30127

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 14, 2017

Nancy D. Cook, Office of the U.S. Attorney, U.S. Courthouse, Coeur d’Alene, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee

John Stephen Roberts, Jr., FPDWA— Federal Public Defender’s Office (Eastern WA & ID), Spokane, WA, for Defendant Appellant

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Chelsea D. Edwards appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Edwards contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence adequately, justify its upward variance from the Guidelines range, and respond to her mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, *see United States v. Miqbel,*444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and hold that there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered Edwards’s arguments for a mid-range sentence and sufficiently explained its reasons for the above-Guidelines sentence. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Edwards next claims that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district *551court did not abuse its discretion. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Edwards’s extensive criminal history and her repeated breaches of the court’s trust. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; *United States v. Simtob,*485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.

***

 disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

The certification set forth below is being submitted in
connection with the Quarterly Report of First Data Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Philip M. Wall, the Chief
Financial Officer of First Data Corporation, certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First Data Corporation.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 15, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Philip M. Wall     
|                   |  |  |  | Philip M. Wall         
|                   |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of Tasker Capital Corp. (the "Company") on Form S-2 (No. 333-115514,
333-119065, 333-121052 and 333-122383) and Form S-8 (No. 333-121054) of our
report, dated March 24, 2004, relating to the financial statements of the
Company, which appear in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Tasker Capital
Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2004.


                                                          /s/ "Morgan & Company"
                                                           Chartered Accountants

Vancouver, Canada
April 28, 2005
Stephen Anthony GRESSETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-4005

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 20, 2018 Rehearing Denied April 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 15


                          [ARTHUR ANDERSEN LETTERHEAD]


January 12, 1998

Catalina Marketing Corporation
11300 9th Street North
St. Petersburg, Florida  33716






Catalina Marketing Corporation:

We are aware that Catalina Marketing Corporation has incorporated, by reference
in its Registration Statement File Nos. 33-46793, 33-77100, 33-82456, 333-07525
and 333-13335, its Form 10-Q for the three-month and nine-month periods ended
December 31, 1997, which includes our report dated January 12, 1998, covering
the unaudited interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant to
Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), that report is not
considered a part of the registration statement prepared or certified by our
firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Very truly yours,

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


By  /s/ WILLIAM J. MEURER
    ---------------------
    William J. Meurer

NNK
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

August 2 3 , 2013 

# Order

Clerk August 2 3 , 2013

145816 ( 62 ) (64) (67)

JOHN TER BEEK

, Plaintiff

- Appell ee

, SC: 145816

COA: 306240

v Kent CC: 10

- 011515

- CZ

CITY OF WYOMING

, Defendant

- Appell ant

.

______________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion s for leave to file amicus curiae brief s by

(1) the Public Corporation Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan

, (2) the Michigan

Municipal League , and (3) the Cato Institute, Drug Policy Alliance, and Law

Enforcement Against Prohibition are GRANTED. The amicus curiae brief s received

from those entities are accepted for filing.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
     I, Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr., certify that:
     1.     Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A-1 of ReGenBiologics, Inc.;
     2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
     3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4.     The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a — 15(e) and 15d — 15(e)) for the registrant andhave:
     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
     5.     The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: June 16, 2004       By: /s/ GERALD E. BISBEE, JR.        Gerald E. Bisbee, Jr.    *President and*
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.72


TERMS OF PERFORMANCE SHARE UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT 
WITH CERTAIN EXECUTIVE OFFICERS




The form of Performance Share Unit Award Agreement (the “Agreement”), filed as Exhibit 10.5 to the Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, contains blanks where the grantee's name, target number of shares, grant date, vesting date, performance measurement period, shortened performance measurement period start date, and months in term provided under the Agreement vary for each executive.  


On January 17, 2019, performance share awards were granted providing certain executives the opportunity to earn common stock, the number of which is determined pursuant to, and subject to the attainment of performance goals.  The performance share awards were granted with a term of 36 months and vest on January 17, 2022.  The performance period start date was January 1, 2019 thereby making the performance period January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2021.  The target number of shares for each executive awarded performance shares on January 17, 2019 is listed below.


	
		
	Executive Officer
	Target number of shares

	Edward O. Handy, III
	7,200

	Mark K.W. Gim
	3,600

	Ronald S. Ohsberg
	2,800

	Kristen L. DiSanto
	2,500

	James M. Hagerty
	2,500

	Kathleen A. Ryan
	2,500

	William K. Wray
	2,500

	Debra A. Gormley
	2,000

	Maria N. Janes
	2,000

	Mary E. Noons
	2,000
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESSICA BIXLER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 13

- 35864 D.C. No. 2:12

- cv - 03045

- TOR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted July 6, 2015 Seattle, Washington Before: KLEINFELD, NGUYEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jessica Bixler a

ppeals the district court’ s affirmance of the denial of her application for Social Security Supplemental Security Income . We vacate and
remand for further proceedings

. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in evaluating the vocational

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3. 

# FILED

JUL 21 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

expert’s testimony

. T he ALJ discounted Bixler’s first hypothetical even though that hypothetical was based on evidence

— Section I of a Mental Residual Functional Capacity Assessment (“MRFCA”) , from an acceptable medical

source

— that the ALJ herself had previously credited

. The ALJ’s stated reasons for rejecting Bixler’s first hypothetical to the vocational expert contradict the
ALJ’s decision to credit Section I of the MRFCA. Because the vocational expert’s testimony wa s critical to the ALJ’s analysis at step five, see Tackett v. Apfel , 180 F.3d 1094, 1100

- 02 (9th Cir. 1999), we cannot say that the ALJ’s error in evaluating that testimony was harmless. We do not reach the question of whether there was substantial evidence on the record as a
whole supporting the denial of benefits, because the ALJ’s errors in analysis require further proceedings. W e therefore vacate the district court’ s judgment and

rema nd to the district court with instructions to remand this case to the agen cy for further proceedings.
We need not reach Bixler’s other arguments

. Costs on appeal are awarded
to Bixler.
VACATED and REMANDED.
STATE EX REL. Sean Michael VINES v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KP-0678

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 1, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE 14TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF OUACHITA**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator's sentencing claim is not cognizable on collateral review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3 ; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State* , 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172 ; *see also* *State v. Thomas,* 08-2912, (La. 10/16/09), 19 So.3d 466.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see* 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

Hughes, J., would grant.
FLORIDA BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS RE: R.G.F.

CASE NO.: SC18-834

Supreme Court of Florida.

JUNE 6, 2018

The Joint Stipulation to Extend Probation is approved and the probationary period imposed against R.G.F. in *Florida Board of Bar Examiners Re: R.G.F.* , Case No. SC17-2126, is extended until June 6, 2023, under the existing terms and conditions with the added conditions that R.G.F.

*643increase his meeting attendance to two abstinence-based groups per week, either AA or SMART Recovery in addition to his attorney support meetings, effective immediately.

*The filing of a motion for rehearing shall not alter the effective date of this probation*.

A True Copy

Test:

John A. Tomasino

Clerk, Supreme Court