alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 20936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07456]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Art Advisory Panel--Notice of Closed Meeting

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting of Art Advisory Panel.

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

SUMMARY: Closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held 
virtually by ZoomGov.

DATES: The meeting will be held April 27, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held 
virtually by ZoomGov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin B. Lawhorn, 400 West Bay Street, 
Suite 252, Jacksonville, FL 32202. Telephone (904) 661-3198 (not a toll 
free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that a 
closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held virtually by 
ZoomGov.
    The agenda will consist of the review and evaluation of the 
acceptability of fair market value appraisals of works of art involved 
in Federal income, estate, or gift tax returns. This will involve the 
discussion of material in individual tax returns made confidential by 
the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6103.
    A determination as required by section 10(d) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act has been made that this meeting is concerned 
with matters listed in sections 552b(c)(3), (4), (6), and (7), of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, and that the meeting will not be open 
to the public.

Andrew J. Keyso Jr.,
Chief, Independent Office of Appeals.
[FR Doc. 2022-07456 Filed 4-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Golub Capital Investment Corporation and Subsidiaries (the “Registrant”) for the annual period ended September 30, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David B. Golub, as Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge that:


|    |                                                                                                                      
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

/s/ David B. GolubName: David B. GolubTitle:  President and Chief Executive Officer





Date: November 28, 2018
#### STATE of Arkansas *v.*Robert A. ROBBINS, Appellee; Bobbye Jeanne Robbins, Next Friend and Intervenor

CR 98-1394

987 S.W.2d 709

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered April 8, 1999

*Winston Bryant,*Att’y Gen., by: *Todd L. Newton,*Ass’t Att’y Gen., and *Kelly K Hill,*Deputy Att’y Gen., for appellant.

*Val P. Price,*for appellee.

*Jeff Rosenzweig,*for next friend and intervenor.

Per Curiam.

On June 17, 1998, a jury convicted Mr. Robert A. Robbins of capital murder and sentenced him to death. By *per curiam*order entered on December 11, 1998, we affirmed the trial court’s finding that Mr. Robbins had properly waived his right to appeal. *State v. Robbins,*335 Ark. 380, 985 S.W.2d 293 (1998). In an unpublished mandate entered on December 22, 1998, and a *per curiam*order clarifying that mandate, we held that Mr. Robbins had properly waived his right to postconviction remedies under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37. *State v. Robbins,*336 Ark. 377, 985 S.W.2d 296 (1999). Mr. Robbins was then scheduled for execution on April 12, 1999.

Currendy, Ms. Bobbye Jeanne Robbins, Mr. Robbins’s mother, has filed a “petition of next friend to recall mandate, for stay of execution and for reexamination of legal and factual issues.” We grant the request for a stay of execution, recall our *228December 22, 1998 mandate, and order the parties to brief the following issues:

1. Does Ms. Robbins have standing to intervene as a next friend for her son, and, if so, is it appropriate for us to consider her arguments at this time?

2. Should the entire record of the trial in which Mr. Robbins was found guilty and sentenced to death be reviewed to determine whether Mr. Robbins was competent to waive his right to appeal and his postconviction remedies under Rule 37?

3. Should this court overrule *Franz v. State,*296 Ark. 181, 754 S.W.2d 839 (1988), and its progeny, and impose mandatory review for trial error in all death-penalty cases regardless of whether the defendant desires such a review?

4. If this court imposes mandatory review of the trial errors in this case, should we then appoint an attorney ad litem for Mr. Robbins to ensure that the record is properly examined and all issues are briefed?

The clerk of this court shall establish the briefing schedule. Because Ms. Robbins is the moving party, she shall proceed first in the preparing and filing of her brief. Finally, the stay of execution shall continue until this court renders its opinion in this matter.
<PAGE>

                          FRIEDE GOLDMAN HALTER, INC.
                          ---------------------------
                               AND SUBSIDIARIES
                               ----------------
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1
                                                                    ------------



1.   Friede Goldman Halter, Inc. (MS)
2.   Amcane Company (MN)
3.   Amcane International (MN)
4.   AmClyde Engineered Products Company, Inc.(DE)
5.   Bludworth Bond Holding, Inc.(DE)
6.   Bludworth Bond, L.L.C.(LA)
7.   Bludworth Bond, L. P. (LA)
8.   Brissonneau & Lotz Marine USA, Inc. (DE)
9.   Equitable Shipyards, L.L.C. (LA)
10.  Friede Goldman Canada, Inc. (Canada)
11.  Friede Goldman Delaware, Inc. (DE)
12.  Friede & Goldman, Ltd.(MS)
13.  Friede Goldman Halter Engineered Products Group, Inc.) (DE)
14.  Friede Goldman International FSC Incorporated (Barbados)
15.  Friede Goldman Newfoundland Limited
16.  Friede Goldman Offshore, Inc. (MS)
17.  Friede Goldman Offshore Texas, L.P. (LA)
18.  Fritz Culver, Inc.(LA)
19.  Gretna Machine & Iron Works, L.L.C.(LA)
20.  Gulf Coast Fabrication, Inc. d/b/a Halter Port Bienville (MS)
21.  Halter-Calcasieu, L.L.C.(LA)
22.  Halter Gulf Repair, Inc.(DE)
23.  Halter Marine Gulfport, Inc.(NV)
24.  Halter Marine, Inc.(NV)
25.  Halter Marine, Inc.(LA)
26.  Halter Marine Panama City, Inc.(DE)
27.  Halter Marine Pascagoula, Inc.(DE)
28.  Halter Marine Services, Inc. (MS)
29.  Halter Yachts, Inc. (DE)
30.  Marine Cleaning, L.L.C. (LA)
31.  Maritime Holdings, Inc.(DE)
32.  Offshore Marine Indemnity Company (VT)
33.  TDI-International, Inc. (Caymans)
34.  TDI-Halter, L.L.C.(LA)
35.  TDI-Orange, L.L.C. (LA)
36.  TDI-Orange, L. P. (LA)
37.  Utility Steel Fabrication, Inc.(LA)
38.  World Rig Leasing, Inc. (DE)
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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 Form 10-Q of Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Noven)
for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James B. Messiry,
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Noven, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Noven.

/s/ James B. Messiry

Name: James B. Messiry
Title:   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Date:   November 4, 2002
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1991
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1991
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael MILAY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10128

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 2, 2017

*816Shelley D. Weger, Assistant U.S., Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mia Crager, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Milay appeals the 12-month- and-one-day sentence, and a condition of supervised release, imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

For the first time on appeal, Mi-lay contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his non-frivolous sentencing arguments, and adequately explain the sentence. We review for plain error, *see United States v. Valencia-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the court considered and responded to Milay’s arguments, and sufficiently explained the be*817low-Guidelines sentence. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, notwithstanding the court’s misstatement regarding the length of the aggregate term, the record is clear that the court intended to impose a sentence of twelve months and one day for the instant offense and run it consecutively to the seven-month sentence for Milay’s violation of supervised release.

Milay also challenges a condition of his supervised release that prohibits him from communicating or interacting with known convicted felons, absent permission from his probation officer. He contends that the condition is not reasonably related to his rehabilitation because some of his family members are felons and it is beneficial to him to have relationships with those family members. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing this standard condition. *See*U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(e)(8) (2016); *United States v. Daniels,*541 F.3d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 2008). The court exempted Milay’s father, the only family member Milay identified as affected by the condition, and the condition is reasonably related to the relevant sentencing factors, and involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to achieve the purposes of supervised release. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); *Daniels,*541 F.3d at 924. Contrary to Milay’s argument, the court was not required to explain further its reasons for imposing the condition. *See Daniels,*541 F.3d at 924.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Castle Dental Centers, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, James M. Usdan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. (S)1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated: August 19, 2002



                                 /s/ James M. Usdan
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                 James M. Usdan, Chief Executive Officer
EX-1022



		

			EXHIBIT 10.22

		


		

			 

		




		
			DRESSER-RAND GROUP INC.
		

		
			GRANT NOTICE FOR 2008 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS
		

		
			FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Dresser-Rand Group Inc. (the "Company"), hereby grants to Grantee named below the number of restricted stock units specified below (the “Award”), upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in this Grant Notice, the Dresser-Rand Group Inc. 2008 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) and the Standard Terms and Conditions (the “Standard Terms and Conditions”) adopted under such Plan and provided to Grantee, each as amended from time to time.  Grantee must formally accept the grant of restricted stock units within 90 days following the Grant Date specified by this Grant Notice; if Grantee fails to do so, Grantee’s Award will be forfeited and Grantee will have no further rights with respect to such Award.    Each restricted stock unit subject to this Award represents the right to receive one share of the Company’s Common Shares, subject to the conditions set forth in this Grant Notice, the Plan and the Standard Terms and Conditions.  This Award is granted pursuant to the Plan and is subject to and qualified in its entirety by the Standard Terms and Conditions.  The Standard Terms and Conditions may be accessed through Grantee’s personal Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Benefit Access® account (www.benefitaccess.com)  in the Plan Documents section.
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Name of Grantee:

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Grant Date:

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Number of restricted stock units subject to the Award:

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Vesting Schedule:

					
					
						 

				



		
			 
		

		
			By accepting this Grant Notice, Grantee acknowledges that he or she has received and read, and agrees that this Award shall be subject to, the terms of this Grant Notice, the Plan and the Standard Terms and Conditions.
		

		
			 
		

		
			DRESSER-RAND GROUP INC.
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			By: /s/ VINCENT R. VOLPE JR.
		

		
			Name: Vincent R. Volpe Jr.
		

		
			Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 of SailPoint Technologies Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark McClain, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

Date: March 19, 2018

By: /s/ Mark McClain

Mark McClain

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan PEREZ-PADRON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50151

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 31, 2017

Helen H. Hong, Nicole Ries Fox, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Ryan A. Sausedp, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

David R. Silldorf, Silldorf <& Levine, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, qircuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Perez-Padron appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 86-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz,*852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Contrary to Perez-Padron’s contention, the court did not deny his request for a minor role reduction on the basis of its belief that couriers should not receive such reductions, its policy views about the war on drugs, or superseded case law. Rather, the record reflects that the court properly considered the minor role Guideline and its amended commentary, and the totality of the circumstances, to determine whether Perez-Padron was “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C); *see also United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (district court need not “tick off” sentencing factors to show that it has considered them because it is presumed to know the law).

Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Perez-Padron was not a minor participant in the offense in light of the fact that he had transported drugs into the United States from Mexico on two prior occasions, the large quantity of drugs that he transported, the amount he was to be paid, and the other circumstances of the offense. *See United States v. Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Total Polling Locations:

Election Day:7 36 

Early Voting:8 -- 

Mail Ballots Transmitted10 Mail Ballots Returned11

2,924,063 2,397,091 (82.0% of 

transmitted) 

Mail Ballots Counted12 Mail Ballots Rejected13

2,379,544 (99.3% of 

returned)

17,547 (0.7% of 

returned) 

Mail Voting Policies 

No excuse is required for mail voting14

Conducts all-mail elections statewide15

Some voters can register as permanent absentee16

EAVS Jurisdictions

36

Total Registered Voters as of 

Nov. 3, 20201

2,944,588 

Registration Forms Received2*

1,955,345 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3*

329,443 

2020 EAVS Data Brief: Oregon

 Voter Registration

2.9%

6.9%

20.5%

29.6%

40.0%

In-Person

Mail, Email, Fax

Other

Online

Motor Vehicle Dept.

Source of Registration Applications4

 Voter Turnout  Election Technology

In-Person 

Election 

Day Voters 

0

0.0%

Mail Voters 

2,379,544

99.3%

In-Person 

Early Voters 

0

0.0%

Other Mode 

16,579

0.7%

Voters Participating By Mode5

36

0 0 0 0 0

Scanner DRE w/o

VVPAT

DRE with

VVPAT

Ballot

Marking

Device

Hand

Count

Electronic

Poll

Books

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9

 Mail Balloting

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov. 

The data shown are certified as final by state election authorities. 

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available, ” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2018 

general election to close of 

registration for 2020 general 

election. 

1 A1a of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a. InPerson is A4b. Online is A4c. 

Motor Vehicle Dept. is A4d. 

Other is the sum of A4e–A4l. 

Denominator is A3a. 

5 In-Person Election Day Voters 

is F1b. Mail Voters is F1d+F1g. 

In-Person Early Voters is F1f. 

Other Mode is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Denominator is sum of F1b–

F1h. 

6 F1a of EAVS. Denominator 

is citizen voting age 

population (CVAP). 

7 D3a of EAVS. 

8 D4a of EAVS. 

9 F3a–d, F5a, F6a, F7a, F8a, 

and F11a of EAVS. 

10 C1a of EAVS. 

11 C1b of EAVS. 

12 C3a of EAVS. 

13 C4a of EAVS. 

14Q17 of Policy Survey. 

15 Q18 and Q18a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

Turnout 

75.8%

6
|   | (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 result of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  May      24, 2010 | By:    | /s/ David      Bruce Hong |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|--------|
|                               |   | David      Bruce Hong          |   |
|                               |   | Chief      Accounting Officer  |   |

----