alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 14533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05565]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Notice of Award of a Single-Source Cooperative Agreement To Fund 
Burkina Faso Ministry of Health; Cancellation

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), located 
within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announces the 
cancellation of an award of approximately $450,000 for Year 1 of 
funding to the Burkina Faso Ministry of Health.

DATES: The notice of award was cancelled on March 10, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trong Ao, Center for Global Health, 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC Ghana Office, US 
Embassy, 24 Fourth Circular Road Cantonments, Accra Ghana, Telephone: 
800-232-6348, E-Mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#196d7f7821597a7d7a377e766f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80f4e6e1b8c0e3e4e3aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 8, 2022 CDC announced a single-
source award will support the Burkina Faso Ministry of Health to 
implement HIV strategic information and laboratory strengthening 
activities in Burkina Faso (87 FR 12966). This award is cancelled in 
its entirety.

Terrance Perry,
Chief Grants Management Officer, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-05565 Filed 3-11-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 680 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 313
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 680

                          [Report No. 104-211]

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel YES DEAR.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 5, 1995

 Mr. Hollings introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

                            January 26, 1996

              Reported by Mr. Pressler, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel YES DEAR.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 U.S.C. App. 289), and sections 12106, 12107, 
and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with a 
coastwise endorsement for the vessel YES DEAR, United States official 
number 578550.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 313

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 680

                          [Report No. 104-211]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel YES DEAR.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            January 26, 1996

                       Reported without amendment
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MINDSPRING ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         386,833
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,501
<INVENTORY>                                        415
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               403,685
<PP&E>                                         106,351
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,789
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 719,543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,111
<BONDS>                                        179,975
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           635
<OTHER-SE>                                     479,296
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   719,543
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               235,468
<CGS>                                           78,882
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,882
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               120,580
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,430
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,463
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,784)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,565
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (21,219)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21,219)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)


</TABLE>
#### IN RE: Sundari K. PRASAD, Petitioner.

No. 17-1910

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 27, 2017

Sundari K. Prasad, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*246Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sundari K. Prasad petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing (1) the recusal of two judges of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia; (2) that Prasad be appointed counsel in all of her pending district court cases and transferred to another correctional institution; and (3) the reversal of all prior adverse rulings in her civil actions. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003).

We have reviewed Prasad’s petition and conclude that Prasad is not entitled to mandamus relief. First, Prasad has failed to establish the extra-judicial bias necessary for this court to direct the recusal of the identified district court judges from participation in her pending civil actions. *See In re Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir. 1987); *see also United States v. Owens,*902 F.2d 1154, 1156 (4th Cir. 1990) (“Parties cannot be allowed to create the basis for recusal by their own deliberate actions. To hold otherwise would encourage inappropriate ‘judge shopping.’ ”). Next, Prasad has not demonstrated her clear entitlement to having counsel appointed in all of her pending civil cases or a transfer to another correctional institution, and mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought, *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Finally, because mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, *In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,*503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007), we deny Prasad’s request for reversal of all adverse rulings in her civil cases.

For these reasons, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We further deny Prasad’s motions to consolidate this petition with another pending appeal and to change the style of this case to that of a petition for a writ of prohibition. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

> 

I, Ben Yan, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Sino Fibre Communications, Inc., certify that;

(1)         I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 of Sino Fibre Communications, Inc.;

(2)         Based on my knowledge, this 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 Report;

(3)         Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)         designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

(b)         evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, 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 financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

(5)         The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)         all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely 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 other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  April 22, 2008

/s/ Ben Yan

Ben Yan
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 70 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 70

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 1975) entitled ``An Act to 
improve the management of royalties from Federal and Outer Continental 
Shelf oil and gas leases, and for other purposes'', the Clerk of the 
House of Representatives shall make the following corrections:
            (1) On page 5, line 23, strike the word ``provision'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof the word ``provisons''.
            (2) On page 29, line 23, insert the word ``so'' before the 
        word ``demonstrate''.
            (3) On page 36, line 2, insert the word ``not'' after the 
        word ``shall''.
            (4) On page 36, line 19, strike the word ``rate'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof the word ``date''.
            (5) On page 36, line 24, strike the word ``owned'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof the word ``owed''.
            (6) On page 39, line 8, strike the word ``dues'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof the word ``due''.
            (7) On page 44, line 24, strike the word ``it'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof the word ``its''.

            Passed the Senate August 2, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 70

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 To correct technical errors in the enrollment of the bill, H.R. 1975.
```
II

Calendar No. 172

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 965

To designate the United States Courthouse for the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria, Virginia, as the Albert V. Bryan United States

Courthouse.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 26 (legislative day, JUNE 19), 1995

Mr. WARNER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

AUGUST 7 (legislative day, JULY 10), 1995

Reported by Mr. CHAFEE, without amendment

A BILL

To designate the United States Courthouse for the Eastern

District of Virginia in Alexandria, Virginia, as the Albert

V. Bryan United States Courthouse.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ALBERT V. BRYAN UNITED

4 STATES COURTHOUSE.

5 (a) NEW COURTHOUSE.—
2

S 965 RS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal building located

2 at Courthouse Square South and Jamieson Avenue

3 in Alexandria, Virginia, shall be known and des4 ignated as the ‘‘Albert V. Bryan United States

5 Courthouse’’.

6 (2) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law,

7 map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of

8 the United States to the Federal building referred to

9 in paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse’’.

11 (b) OLD COURTHOUSE.—

12 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal building located

13 at 200 South Washington Street in Alexandria, Vir14 ginia, shall not be known and designated as the

15 ‘‘Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse’’.

16 (2) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law,

17 map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of

18 the United States to the Federal building known and

19 designated prior to the effective date of this section

20 as the ‘‘Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse’’

21 shall be deemed to be a reference to the Federal

22 building referred to in paragraph (1).

23 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall become ef24 fective on the date of the completion of the construction

25 of the Federal building referred to in subsection (a)(1).

Calendar No. 172

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 965

A BILL

To designate the United States Courthouse for the

Courthouse.ginia, as the Albert V. Bryan United StatesEastern District of Virginia in Alexandria, VirAUGUST 7 (legislative day, JULY 10), 1995

Reported without amendment
November 1 , 2

Oak Ridge Fational L&

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ri^loratory

UT-SATTELLE

1

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 02EE
iv& further

ng process

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY UT-BATTELLE

2

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 02EE
Q

c-icts on h

'aduct i

'l th or

OAK RIDGE NATION LABORATORY

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

U

UT-BATTELLE

3

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 02EE
INHW L da "S 1l AOU Ng dO

.U OJ O '1 -IVNOILVNI aD

J

( i I e p u u

GIG ,^TP SOMIUO IOS) M OMS-PI

,):,A =, l E

to

i!' sjojonpuo3j8UOl4U8AUO:) );®

OWB ,I dJl snGL jejew

^^`%;T Un3 ): Aguc JIBAe

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 02EE
#### Marshall Dewayne WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7084

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 28, 2017

Marshall DeWayne Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding . precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marshall DeWayne Williams, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order granting Respondent’s summary judgment motion on Williams’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, and denying Williams’ summary judgment motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Williams’ application to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district *289court. *See Williams v. Warden,*No. 7:16-cv-00548-MFU-RSB (W.D. Va. July 5, 2017). 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
            35.1
 Servicer
            Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation







**NISSAN
      MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION**






**OFFICER'S
      CERTIFICATE**






The
      undersigned, Steven R. Lambert, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN
      MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the “Company”), does
      hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as
      follows:




(1)           The
      undersigned has caused a review of the activities of the Company, in its
      capacity as Servicer, during the period November 21, 2006 through March 31,
      2007
      (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Servicing
      Agreement, dated as of March 1, 1999, as amended and as supplemented by the
      2006-A Servicing Supplement, dated as of November 21, 2006 (as
      supplemented, the “Agreement”), by and among the Nissan-Infiniti LT, as titling
      trust, NILT Trust, as UTI Beneficiary, and the Company, as servicer, to be
      conducted under his supervision; and




(2)           To
      the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has
      fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
      throughout the Reporting Period.




This
      Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities
      and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued asset-backed
      securities.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have
      the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.




IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 29th day of
      June,
      2007.




`    /s/
      Steven R.
      Lambert


Steven
      R.
      Lambert


President
      and Chief
      Executive Officer





























43
EX-34 (e)
(logo) KPMG

KPMG LLP
Suite 900
10 South Broadway
St. Louis, MO 63102-1761

Telephone 314 444 1400
Fax       314 444 1470
Internet  www.us.kpmg.com


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Citibank, N.A.:

We have examined management's assessment, included in the accompanying
Management Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that
Citibank, N.A. (the Custodian) complied with servicing criteria 1122(d)(4)(i)
and 1122(d(4)(ii) set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of the Securities and
Exchange Commission's Regulation AB in connection with the servicing of
residential mortgage loans for which the Custodian performs a custodial function
pursuant to a custodial agreement with Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. for
post December 31, 2005 transactions (the Platform), as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006. Management is responsible for the Custodian's compliance with
those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assessment about the Custodian's compliance based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Custodian's compliance with the
servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities in
which the Custodian performs a particular servicing function and determining
whether the Custodian processed those selected transactions and performed those
selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities
performed by the Custodian during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Custodian during the period covered by
this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Custodian's compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assessment that the Custodian complied with certain
servicing criteria outlined in Exhibit A in the accompanying Management
Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2006 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ KPMG LLP


St. Louis, Missouri
March 19, 2007


KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S.
member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.