alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15334]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984.
    Interested parties can review or obtain copies of agreements at the 
Washington, DC offices of the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, 
NW., Room 962. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement 
to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, 
within 10 days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register.

Agreement No.: 217-011624
Title: Lykes/TMM Space Charter Agreement
Parties:
    Transportacion Maritima Mexicana S.A. de C.V. (``TMM'')
    Lykes Lines Limited, LLC (``Lykes'')
Synopsis: The proposed Agreement authorizes Lykes to charter space to 
TMM and for the parties to enter into related cooperative arrangements 
in the trade between U.S. Gulf and South Atlantic Coast ports and ports 
in North Europe and Mexico

    Dated: June 4, 1998.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Ronald D. Murphy,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15334 Filed 6-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
PROMISSORY NOTE


 


	$7,430.73	March 2, 2012


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED on March 2, 2012, RNK
Global Development Acquisition Corp. (formerly RNK China Acquisition Corp.), a British Virgin Islands Company, having an office
at Suite 101, No.26 Wen Hua East Road, Huilongguan, Changpin, Beijing, 102208, China (the “Borrower),
hereby promises to pay to the order of Richard Propper (the “Lender”),
the principal amount of SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY DOLLARS AND SEVENTY-THREE CENTS ($7,430.73) on or before May 31,
2012 (the “Maturity Date”).


 


Interest shall accrue on all amounts outstanding
hereunder at a fixed annual rate equal to seven percent (7%). Interest shall be computed on the basis of the actual number of days
elapsed and a year of 365 days and shall not be compounded.


 


This Note may be prepaid, in whole or from
time to time in part, without premium or penalty.


 


If permitted by law, Borrower shall reimburse
the holder hereof for all costs and expenses incurred by the holder and shall pay the reasonable fees and disbursements of the
holders counsel in connection with the collection of this Note and/or the enforcement of holder’s rights hereunder.


 


No amendment, modification or waiver of
any provision of this Note nor consent to any departure by Borrower therefrom shall be effective unless the same shall be in writing
and signed by the holder hereof and such waiver or consent shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific
purpose for which given.


 


Borrower hereby waives any requirements
of notice of dishonor and protest. This Note shall be governed in all respects by the laws of The State of New York without giving
effect to the conflict of law provisions thereof. This Note shall be binding upon Borrower and its successors and assigns and the
terms hereof shall inure to the benefit of holder and its successors and assigns, including subsequent holders hereof; provided,
however, that this Note shall not be assignable or transferable without the prior written consent of Borrower.


 


The holding of any provision of this Note
to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction shall not affect any other provisions, and the other provisions
of this Note shall remain in full force and effect.


 


Unless otherwise specified by the holder
hereof on the date when payment is due, payment under this Note shall be made at and all notices to holders shall be delivered
to, the addresses set forth in the first paragraph of this Note.


 






    	 



    	 



    
 





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed or caused this instrument to be duly executed and delivered by its authorized representative as an instrument under seal
as of the date first written above.


 


RNK Global Development Acquisition Corp.


 


/s/ Remo Richli


 


By: Remo Richli


  



    	2
---

Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, as the Interim President and Chief Executive
Officer of Royal Standard Minerals Inc., certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge and belief, the annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
January 31, 2012, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the periodic
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Royal Standard Minerals Inc. at the dates and for the
periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for
any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update
the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Dated effective: May 31, 2012

/s/ Philip
GrossPhilip GrossInterim President and Chief Executive Officer

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          4,759
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  59,293
<ALLOWANCES>                                   16,651<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                    49,262
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              128,435
<PP&E>                                         22,774
<DEPRECIATION>                                  1,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                173,076
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          62,600
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          177
<OTHER-SE>                                     36,669
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  173,076
<SALES>                                       282,178
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              282,178
<CGS>                                          92,780
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 265,093
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (862)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                4,892
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              5,559
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                12,388
<INCOME-TAX>                                    4,188
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             8,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (4,902)
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    3,298
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.18
<FN>

<F1> ALLOWANCES NETTED AGAINST TRADE RECEIVABLES INCLUDE BOTH BAD DEBT RESERVES
     AND SALES RETURN RESERVES.
</FN>


</TABLE>
No. 12-7843.

#### Hill *v.*Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### In the Matter of Ashley B. and Others, Infants. Oneida County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Laney K. et al., Appellants.

[768 NYS2d 915]

— Appeal from an order of Family Court, Oneida County (Griffith, J.), entered January 8, 2002, which determined that respondent Darrin K. abused Ashley B., respondent Laney K. derivatively neglected Ashley B., and respondents derivatively neglected Adriane K. and Amy K.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly determined, following a fact-finding hearing, that respondent Darrin K. abused Ashley B., his stepdaughter, and that respondent Laney K., Ashley’s mother, derivatively neglected Ashley. The court also properly determined that respondents derivatively neglected their two other daughters, Adriane K. and Amy K. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the findings of abuse and derivative neglect are supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see*Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [1]; *Matter of Tammie Z.,*66 NY2d 1, 3 [1985]). Contrary to the contention of respondents, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying their motion for an examination of Ashley by their expert *(see*Family Ct Act § 1038 [c]; *Matter of Jessica R.,*78 NY2d 1031, 1033-1034 [1991]). Contrary to the further contention of respondents, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying their successive motions to reopen the fact-finding hearing to introduce evidence of the *1403victim’s allegedly inconsistent statements, which statements were made after the close of proof *(see generally Feldsberg v Nitschke,*49 NY2d 636, 643 [1980], *rearg denied*50 NY2d 1059 [1980]).

In addition, respondents contend that testimony from four witnesses constituted improper bolstering. They raised a specific objection only with respect to the testimony of the police officer repeating the unsworn allegations of Ashley, however, and that testimony did not constitute improper bolstering *(see Matter of Marta B.,*233 AD2d 667 [1996]; *see generally Matter of Nicole V.,*71 NY2d 112, 117-118 [1987]). By failing to raise specific objections to the remainder of the testimony challenged on appeal, respondents failed to preserve for our review their contention that such testimony constituted improper bolstering *(see e.g. People v West,*56 NY2d 662, 663 [1982]; *People v Alshoaibi,*273 AD2d 871, 872 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 960 [2000]). Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 37 (Monday, February 25, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04131]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

42 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. CDC-2012-0017]
RIN 0920-AA12

Control of Communicable Diseases: Foreign; Scope and Definitions

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within 
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is withdrawing a 
previously published Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that 
solicited public comment on updates to the Scope and Definitions for 
its regulations.

DATES: The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published at 77 FR 75939, 
December 26, 2012, is withdrawn, effective immediately.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning this notice: 
Ashley A. Marrone, JD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 
Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E-03, Atlanta, Georgia 30333; telephone 404-
498-1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 26, 2012 HHS/CDC published a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) amending 42 CFR part 71 to update 
the Scope and Definitions to reflect modern terminology and plain 
language used globally by industry and public health partners. (77 FR 
75939). On the same date, HHS/CDC simultaneously published a companion 
direct final rule that proposed identical updates in this Federal 
Register because it believed that the proposed revisions were non-
controversial and unlikely to generate significant adverse comment. (77 
FR 75885). In the NPRM, HHS/CDC indicated that if we did not receive 
any significant adverse comments on the direct final rule by January 
25, 2013, we would publish a document in the Federal Register 
withdrawing this notice of proposed rulemaking and confirming the 
effective date of the direct final rule within 30 days after the 
comment period on the direct final rule ends. HHS/CDC received two 
comments to the companion NPRM. One comment pertained to food safety 
that raised issues unrelated to the companion NPRM and appears to have 
been submitted in error. The second comment was a general comment on 
immigration and was outside the scope of this rulemaking. HHS/CDC did 
not consider this comment to be a significant, adverse comment because 
it did not raise any issues that were relevant to the subject matter 
under consideration. Because HHS/CDC did not receive any relevant 
significant adverse comments within the specified comment period, we 
hereby withdraw this NPRM from rulemaking.

    Dated: February 13, 2013.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2013-04131 Filed 2-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
```
# Exercise helps agency police prepare for threats  

/ Published Sept. 27, 2019
Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 
In an era fraught with mass shootings and incidents of violence in the workplace, the safety of McNamara Headquarters Complex employees can’t be overstated. Defense Logistics Agency Headquarters police regularly hone their skills in responding to active shooters, as they in did during a Sept. 26 exercise.

Exercises are held annually at the HQC and help agency law enforcement coordinate with Fort Belvoir police officers and first responders, ensuring they communicate effectively and address potential vulnerabilities. During the simulations, police announce instructions to employees via the complex’s public address system and AtHoc voicemails and emails to help them respond as they would during an actual emergency.

The real-world scenario involved two actors. Defense Contract Audit Agency Support Services Administrative Specialist Adam Gates played a man delivering a package to DCAA Security Specialist Chelsie Norena, who portrayed a DLA mailroom employee.

What began as an innocuous verbal exchange about the package quickly escalated into a violent attack when Norena informed Gates she did not order the item and told him he was being terminated as a result of the misdirected package.

While Norena remained calm, Gates became increasingly agitated. Stepping back, he slammed the box to the warehouse floor and pulled out a gun.

Gates mimed firing multiple shots at Norena, who collapsed to the ground and knocked over a barrel containing hazardous waste as “smoke” began to fill the warehouse. Gates dropped the gun and ran toward the back exit, shouting, “I didn’t mean to do that!” His panicked attempts at escape led him to crouch behind some crates and push against the door repeatedly, trying to open it.

Seconds later, police entered through the door opposite the suspect. They ordered Gates to stand up, raise his hands and face the wall. Both parties shouted to each other as the sound of approaching sirens drifted in through the bay doors. More police officers entered the door nearest the suspect and took him into custody.

The whole event unfolded in less than five minutes.

As the team went over the exercise details during the after-action review, they recognized what went according to plan, what didn’t and how they can improve. That’s what the exercise was all about, learning and improving the DLA police force’s tools, tactics and techniques to keep employees safe.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Titus Halteman, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 519]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.), rendered August 18, 2011, convicting defendant, *406after a jury trial, of sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of two years, unanimously modified, as an exercise of discretion in the interest of justice, to reduce the prison component of the sentence to 364 days, and otherwise affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations.

The verdict was not legally repugnant, and the court properly denied defendant’s application to resubmit the case to the jury for further deliberations. Under the court’s charge, the jury could have found defendant guilty of first-degree sexual abuse but not guilty of first-degree rape *(see People v Muhammad,*17 NY3d 532, 540 [2011]). The court followed the statutory definitions in charging the jury that rape required penetration, while sexual abuse only required touching. Even though, at defendant’s request, the court gave the jury a dictionary definition of the vagina, it never instructed the jury that a touching of the victim’s vagina by defendant’s penis would necessarily constitute penetration. This remained a factual question, which the jury apparently resolved by finding a touching, but not a penetration.

We find, however, that defendant’s sentence was excessive to the extent indicated and modify accordingly.

Concur—Renwick, J.R, Manzanet-Daniels, Mazzarelli, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Davon Woodley, Appellant.

[49 NYS3d 689]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J.), rendered September 17, 2013, as amended September 30 and October 3, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. The evidence established that defendant slammed the victim’s head into a wall, and also fractured the victim’s pelvis by stomping on it, and thereby evinced an intent to inflict serious physical injury.

Defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s summation are entirely unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. The remarks at issue generally constituted permissible responses to defense counsel’s summation, and to the extent there were improprieties, they did not deprive defendant of a fair trial *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]; *People v D'Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1st Dept 1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Mazzarelli, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.
|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                           
|View History:                                                            
|                                                                         
|Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Mexico (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                         
|                                                                         
|Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Mexico (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                         

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan   | Feb   | Mar | Apr | May | Jun   | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov   | Dec  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----- | ----- | --- | --- | --- | ----- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ----- | -----
|2013                                                                                                                              |       |       |     |     |     |       |     |     |     |     | 2,725 |      
|2019                                                                                                                              |       |       |     |     |     |       |     |     |     |     |       | 6,294
|                                                                                                                                 
|2020                                                                                                                              | 3,689 |       |     |     |     |       |     |     |     |     | 3,056 |      
|2021                                                                                                                              |       | 3,367 |     |     |     |       |     |     |     |     |       |      
|2022                                                                                                                              |       |       |     |     |     | 3,292 |     |     |     |     |       |      
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### In the Matter of Glen Rauch Securities, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Mark B. Weinraub, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 611]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered March 17, 2003, which granted the petition to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent’s motion to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The arbitrators properly sanctioned respondent for his failure to comply with their order directing the production of documents by precluding the testimony of a witness and the introduction of evidence to which the undisclosed documents related. The policy of judicial noninterference with the arbitral process *(Matter of Neirs-Folkes, Inc. [Drake Ins. Co.],*75 AD2d 787, 788 [1980], *affd*53 NY2d 1038 [1981]) requires the courts *302to afford wide discretion to the arbitrators in procedural matters, which will not be restricted without a compelling reason *(see Avon Prods. v Solow,*150 AD2d 236, 239-240 [1989]). A court will not “concern itself with the form or sufficiency of the evidence before the arbitrators or some departure from formal technicalities in the absence of a clear showing that statutory grounds exist for vacatur of the award” *(Korein v Rabin,*29 AD2d 351, 356 [1968]; *see also Matter of Travelers Ins. Co. v Job,*239 AD2d 289, 291-292 [1997]). Respondent has not shown that relevant public policy considerations bar imposition of the sanction of preclusion, or that the award is facially unenforceable *(Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg],*46 NY2d 623, 631 [1979]). It is evident that respondent availed himself of the brokerage services provided to him by petitioners, and he was appropriately held responsible for the debit balance in his account resulting from trading losses. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.