alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 117 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16172]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Department of Defense 
Standard Tender of Freight, MT Form 364-R, OMB Number 0704-0261.
    Type of Request: Reinstatement.
    Number of Respondents: 993.
    Responses per Respondent: 13.
    Annual Responses: 13,500.
    Average Burden per Response: 45 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 10,125.
    Needs and Uses: The Department of Defense Standard Tender of 
Freight Services is used to determine freight transportation charges, 
accessorial and security service costs, and to select carriers for 1.2 
million Government Bill of Lading (GBL) freight shipments annually. The 
information derived from the DoD tenders on file with the Military 
Traffic Management Command (MTMC) is used by the MTMC subordinate 
commands and DoD shippers to select the lowest cost carrier to 
transport freight shipments. This information is used to develop about 
140,000 procurement rate quotations annually. Additionally, DoD tender 
rate and other pertinent tender data are noted on the GBL at the time 
of shipment. The DoD tender is used as the source document for the 
General Services Administration post-shipment audit of carrier freight 
bills.
    Affected Public: Business or Other For-Profit.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Peter N. Weiss.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Weiss at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: June 12, 1998.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 98-16172 Filed 6-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
No. 10-5818.

#### Eudale Jackson, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 968, 131 S. Ct. 470,

178 L. Ed. 2d 299,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8050.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
SERVE D JANUAR Y 3 , 201 1 

### -''^'RTMENTO F ' NSPORWiO N e ' l OPERATION

S U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S : i l JAN- U A S

^ 3 1 WASHINGTON , D C
IN TH EMATTE RO F 

### FREEDO M AIRLINE S INC
. FA A DOCKE T NO
. CP09SW000 5

(Civi l Penalty Case ) DM S FAA-2009-098 0 

### ORDE RO N STATU S O FCAS E In prio r pleading s th e Agenc y notifie dth e undersigne dtha t th e matte r

i s pendin g settlemen t subjec t t o th e approva l o f

th e U.S
. Bankruptc y Court
. WHEREFORE , i t

b e an di s hereb y ORDE Ra s follows : 1
. Th e partie s ar e hereb y directe dt o notif y th e Judge , i n writing , b y February 1 , 2011 , th e statu s o f

thi s cas e an dstatu s o f

settlement
.

GchardlJ
. Goodwi n U.S
. Administrativ e La w Judg e Attachment(s ) - Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No
. CP09SW000 5 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention ; Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 ' ON ECOP Y Christophe r

Pappaioanou , Respondent' s Counse l Director , Legal Affair s Mes aAir Grou p 41 0 North44thStreet , Suit e 70 0 Phoenix , AZ8500 8 TEL : 602-685-400 0 FAX : 602-685-435 0 Annjenet Chennault , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l .Southwes t

Region , ASW-7E4 , A C Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 260 1 MeachamBlvd
. Fort Worth , T X 7613 7 TEL : 817-222-507 1 FAX : 817-222-5092/594 6 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 1200 New Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federa l Aviatio n Administration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suitf

e 2W1000 , Washington

, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430
.
No. 09-11485.

#### Rodolphe Nogbou, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 952, 131 S. Ct. 208,

178 L. Ed. 2d 249,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7786.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 370 Fed. Appx. 154.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15473]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[A-475-818, A-489-805]


Certain Pasta From Italy and Turkey: Notice of Extension of Time 
Limits for Antidumping Duty; First Administrative Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Easton or John Brinkmann, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1777 and (202) 482-5288, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Postponement of Preliminary Results of the First Administrative 
Reviews

    On August 28, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
initiated the first administrative reviews of the antidumping duty 
orders on certain pasta from Italy and Turkey, covering the period 
January 19, 1996, through June 30, 1997 (62 FR 45621). Section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires 
the Department to make a preliminary determination in an administrative 
review within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of 
an order for which a review is requested. The original deadline for the 
preliminary results of these reviews was April 2, 1998. However, when 
it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, 
section 751(a)(3)(A) allows the Department to extend this time period 
up to 365 days. Accordingly, on January 28, 1998, the Department 
extended the time limit for completion of the preliminary results of 
the administrative review by 90 days (63 FR 4218). The current extended 
deadline for the preliminary results of these reviews is July 1, 1998. 
We have now concluded, however, that the full 120-day extension is 
necessary. Accordingly, the Department is extending the time limit for 
completion of the preliminary results of these administrative reviews 
by 30 additional days, or until July 31, 1998. We plan to issue the 
final results of these administrative reviews within 120 days after 
publication of the preliminary results.
    These extensions are in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act.

    Dated: June 3, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-15473 Filed 6-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
No. 10-5754.

#### Clifford Pender, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 955, 131 S. Ct. 342,

178 L. Ed. 2d 254,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7813.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 60.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2316 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2316

      To suspend temporarily the duty on C.I. Pigment Yellow 139.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 26 (legislative day, July 20), 1994

 Mr. Johnston introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on C.I. Pigment Yellow 139.

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

SECTION 1. C.I. PIGMENT YELLOW 139.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:
    

       ``  9902.32.32   C.I. Pigment Yellow 139 (CAS             No change      No change      On or before     
                         No. 36888-99-0) (provided                                              12/31/97        
                         for in subheading                                                                      
                         3204.17.50).................  Free                                                     
                                                                                                                

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Lauralyn (“Laura”) J. Remo**

**DOT, Office of Aviation Analysis, Air Carrier Fitness Division, X**

**- 56**  **1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590**  **United States of America**

Dear Ms. Remo.

The community

of Coffman Cove, Alaska is located on the North east side of Prince of Wales I sland. We have had some of the worst service for delivering the mail from Taguan Air in Ketchikan. Taguan Air, Pacific Airway s and Promech Air, have display ed that the only thing there companies care about is the people who c ome off the cruise ships during the summer months. Some weeks our communit y goes without mail delivery for an y reason, this put s people lik e me in harms way due to the pre scription s that come in the mail don’t get here in a timel y manner. It has been commo n practice for the air carrier not to fly the mail rout for no reason.

We need to have a company like Island Air Express taking our mail. I have been a customer of Island Air express since they started service. In the y ears I have been fl yi ng with them h ave I been very pleased with the service they provide. They

are very professional they

go the extra mile to make sure you have a safe flight. They have shown that they reall y care about the people on Prince of Wales I sland. Island Air Express has shown si nce going into service the reliabilit y that the people on Prince of Wales Island need in an Air carrier. Island Air express is on time, they can fl y in bad weather, and their Planes air the best in the industry

. The other air carriers, Promech Air, Pacifi c Airway s and Taquan Air have shown disrespect for the people of Prince of Wales Island with the lack of on time service, say ing they

will be there and at the last minute cancelling the flight or leaving because they wanted to go earl y. This kind of servic e is the normal routine of these Companies. As Vice May or of the City of Coffman Cove, Alaska there is onl y one company that I would recommend and only one company

I will use and that is Island Air Express!

Thank y ou, sincerely Br yc e Brucker, Vice Ma yo r, City of Coffman Cove
, Alaska. P.O Box 18046 Coffman Cove, Alaska 99918
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16517]


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

UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: United States Enrichment Corporation.

SUBJECT: Board of Directors.

TIME AND DATE: 8:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 24, 1998.

PLACE: USEC Corporate Headquarters, 6903 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20817.

STATUS: The meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: Privatization of the Corporation.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Elizabeth Stuckle at 301/564-3399.

    Dated: June 16, 1998.
William H. Timbers, Jr.,
President and Chief Executive Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-16517 Filed 6-17-98; 12:17 pm]
BILLING CODE 8720-01-M
(January 25, 2018)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edwin Duran, Appellant.

[69 NYS3d 637]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered December 10, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of sixteen years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly adjudicated defendant a persistent violent felony offender. Defendant did not meet his burden of establishing that his 1993 plea conviction was unconstitutionally obtained *(see People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9, 15 [1983]).

During the allocution on defendant’s 1993 plea to second-degree burglary, defendant offered an “explanation,” the gist of which was that he entered the premises at issue for the purpose of obtaining money owed to his wife. Defendant characterizes this explanation as asserting a claim of right defense *(see*Penal Law § 155.15 [1]), thus negating the element of intent to commit a crime. However, the court engaged in a colloquy with defendant that was sufficient to ensure he understood he was admitting that his intent was nevertheless unlawful, because he was not permitted to use self-help to acquire cash in satisfaction of a debt *(see People v Green,*5 NY3d 538, 543-544 [2005]).

As a condition of the 1993 plea, the court required defendant to withdraw an unspecified constitutional challenge to a 1987 predicate conviction, the validity of which is not at issue on this appeal. We do not find that this plea condition rendered the plea unconstitutional *(see People v McClemore,*276 AD2d 32, 37 [4th Dept 2000]).

Defendant’s claim that the 1993 plea was unconstitutionally *599obtained because the plea court’s enumeration of defendant’s rights under *Boykin v Alabama*(395 US 238 [1969]) was deficient, is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the record as a whole establishes the voluntariness of the plea *(see People v Sougou,*26 NY3d 1052 [2015]).

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Kapnick, Kahn, Kern, JJ.
#### People v Coriolan

2d Dept: 138 AD3d 1134 (Queens)

denied 8/25/16 (Fahey, J.)
Mark Hague 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 

c/o Air Planning and Development Branch 

11201 Renner Blvd. 

Lenexa,ICansas 66219 

Re: SIP revision request 

Dear Mr. Hague: 

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources requests revisions to the Iowa State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for the enclosed Polk County Board of Health Rules and Regulations- Chapter V 

(Air Pollution). 

The Polk County Board of Supervisors (the Board) adopted the enclosed amendments on 

October 6, 2015, after the public hearing and public board meetings. The Board has full legal 

authority to develop rules pursuant to Section455B of the Iowa Code. The Board and Polk 

County followed all applicable administmtive procedures in proposing and adopting these rules. 

Enclosed are the required submittal elements for determination of plan completeness per 40 CFR 

Part 51, Appendix V. 

The notice of public hearing was published in The Des Moines Register on September 4, 2015 

and September 21, 2015. No written or oral comments were provided during the comment period 

that extended from September 1, 20 15, through October 6, 2015. The Board made no changes to 

the final rules from what was proposed. The effective date of these adopted amendments is 

October 12, 2015. Copies of the affidavits of publication are enclosed. 

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources requests that the Environmental Protection Agency 

amend the SIP to include the changes made to the Polk County- Air Quality Division 

regulations. The requested change to the SIP includes Article 1 through Article XIII, including 

definitions, insofar as they pertain to the SIP. Additionally, Items 3-6 (pertaining to Article VI 

and Article VIII) are specifically excluded fi·om this request. 

7900 Hickman Road, Suite 1/Windsor Heights, Iowa 50324 

515-242-5100 FAX 515-242-5094 www.lowaCieanAir.gov 
Chuck Gipp 

Director 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

Enclosures: Affidavits of publication, final changes to Polk County regulations, Board signature 

pages, and final Polk County Board of Health Rules and Regulations (Chapter V-Air Pollution) 

(effective October 12. 2015) 

cc: Heather Hamilton, EPA Region 7, with enclosures - by email 

2
Exhibit 15.4

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the registration statements of Elbit Systems Ltd. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-9354 and 333-139512) of our report dated February 25, 2008 with respect to the balance sheet of Tadiran Spectralink Ltd. as of December 31, 2007 and
the related statements of operations, changes in shareholders equity and cash flows for each of the two years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2007, which report is included in this Annual Report of Elbit Systems Ltd. on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008.



|    |  |                                          
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Brightman Almagor & Co.              
|    |  | Brightman Almagor & Co.                  
|    |  | A member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Tel-Aviv, Israel,

March 12, 2009
No. 10-5201.

#### Shannon Hurd, Petitioner v. Burl Cain, Warden.

562 U.S. 909, 131 S. Ct. 257,

178 L. Ed. 2d 171,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6983.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Bermudez, Appellant.

[62 NYS3d 57]

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia DiMango, J.), rendered August 6, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3V2 years, held in abeyance, and the matter remitted for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

*411During the plea proceeding, the court asked defendant whether he was a United States citizen, and defendant answered “No.” Rather than advising defendant that if he was not a United States citizen, he could be deported as a result of his plea, as required under *People v Peque*(22 NY3d 168 [2013], *cert denied sub nom. Thomas v New York,*574 US —, 135 S Ct 90 [2014]), which applies to cases on direct appeal *(People v Brazil,*123 AD3d 466 [1st Dept 2014], *lv denied*25 NY3d 1198 [2015]), the court asked defendant, “You are not a U.S. citizen?” to which defendant answered, “Oh yeah, yeah.” Given the phrasing of the question in the negative, the response could be interpreted as asserting either citizenship or noncitizenship. The court did not inquire further into defendant’s answers or advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea, and the record is devoid of any indication that defendant was otherwise aware, such as through defense counsel, of those consequences. Nor does this exchange, in the context of the plea allocution, suggest that defendant affirmatively misrepresented his immigration status, as he accurately answered the court’s question *(compare Brazil,*123 AD3d at 467). Thus, his responses, even if contradictory, did not absolve the court of the obligation to state briefly that the guilty plea could render defendant deportable.

Therefore, defendant should be afforded the opportunity to move to vacate his plea upon a showing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court advised him of the possibility of deportation *(Peque,*22 NY3d at 198; *see People v Belliard,*135 AD3d 437, 438 [1st Dept 2016]). Accordingly, we remit for the remedy set forth in *Peque*(22 NY3d at 200-201), and we hold the appeal in abeyance for that purpose.

Concur — Sweeny, J.R, Moskowitz, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1998

To provide for the acquisition of certain lands formerly occupied by the

Franklin D. Roosevelt family, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 25 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 22), 1994

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

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To provide for the acquisition of certain lands formerly occupied by the Franklin D. Roosevelt family, and for other

purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. ACQUISITION OF ROOSEVELT FAMILY LANDS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—

5 (1) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of

6 the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Sec7 retary’’) may acquire, by purchase with donated or

8 appropriated funds, donation, or otherwise, lands

9 and interests in land (including development rights

10 and easements) in the properties located at Hyde
2

•S 1998 IS

1 Park, New York, that were owned by Franklin D.

2 Roosevelt or his family at the time of his death, as

3 depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Roosevelt Family Es4 tate’’ and dated November 19, 1993.

5 (2) LIMITATIONS.—

6 (A) RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.—The Sec7 retary may only acquire those residential prop8 erties on the lands and interests in land de9 picted on the map referred to in subsection (a)

10 that were owned or occupied by Franklin D.

11 Roosevelt or his family, including his parents,

12 siblings, wife, and children.

13 (B) STATE LANDS.—Lands and interests

14 in land depicted on the map referred to in sub15 section (a) that are owned by the State of New

16 York, or a political subdivision of the State,

17 may only be acquired by donation.

18 (3) PRIORITY.—In acquiring lands and inter19 ests in land pursuant to this section, the Secretary

20 shall, to the extent possible, give priority to acquir21 ing the tract of lands commonly known as the

22 ‘‘Open Park Hodhome Tract’’, as generally depicted

23 on the map referred to in subsection (a).

24 (4) COSTS.—The Secretary may pay the costs,

25 including title search and survey, associated with the
3

•S 1998 IS

1 acquisition of lands and interests in land pursuant

2 to this section.

3 (b) ADMINISTRATION.—Lands and interests in land

4 acquired by the Secretary pursuant to this section shall

5 be added to, and administered as part of, the Franklin

6 Delano Roosevelt National Historic Site or the Eleanor

7 Roosevelt National Historic Site, as appropriate.

8 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

9 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are nec10 essary to carry out this Act.

Æ