alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 14512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6769]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Proposed New Fee Site; Federal Lands Recreation 
Enhancement Act, (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108-447)

AGENCY: Tahoe National Forest, USDA Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed New Fee Site.

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

SUMMARY: The Tahoe National Forest is proposing to charge a new fee at 
one developed recreation site. Fees are assessed based on the level of 
amenities and services provided, cost of operation and maintenance, 
market assessment, and public comment. The fee listed is only proposed 
and final determination will be made upon further analysis and public 
comment. Funds from the fee would be used for the operation and 
maintenance of this recreation site.
    Sardine Lookout will be made available for overnight rental. The 
rental fee is recommended at $45 per night. Lookout rentals offer a 
unique experience and are a widely popular offering on National 
Forests. The Tahoe National Forest currently operates one lookout for 
public rental, the Calpine Lookout on the Sierraville Ranger District. 
The Sardine Lookout is in the process of being restored to maintain the 
lookout's eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. Fees 
would continue to help protect and maintain this lookout and the 
historic integrity of the facility.

DATES: New fees would begin after a six-month publication in the 
Federal Register or August 15, 2009, whichever is sooner. The Sardine 
Lookout rental will be listed with the National Recreation Reservation 
Service.

ADDRESSES: Tom Quinn, Forest Supervisor, Tahoe National Forest, 631 
Coyote St., Nevada City, California 95959.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Baldrica, Sierraville District 
Archeologist, (530) 994-3401, ext. 6651. Information about proposed fee 
changes can also be found on the Tahoe National Forest Web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/tahoe.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act 
(Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to 
publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new 
recreation fee areas are established. These new fees will be reviewed 
by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision 
and implementation.

    Dated: February 9, 2009.
Tom Quinn,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E9-6769 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
EXHIBIT 32.1




                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dahua Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB/A for the quarter ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Yonglin Du, CEO
and President 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.



Dated: December 11, 2006


/s/ Yonglin Du
------------------
Yonglin Du
CEO and President
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 53962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21633]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C68a, Airborne Automatic Dead 
Reckoning Computer Equipment Utilizing Aircraft Heading and Doppler 
Ground Speed and Drift Angle Data (for Air Carrier Aircraft)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C68a, 
Airborne Automatic Dead Reckoning Computer Equipment Utilizing Aircraft 
Heading and Doppler Ground Speed and Drift Angle Data (for Air Carrier 
Aircraft).

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the FAA's cancellation of TSO-C68a. The 
effect of the cancelled TSO-C68a will result in no new TSO-C68a design 
or production approvals.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Albert Sayadian, AIR-130, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 470 L'Enfant Plaza, Suite 4102, Washington, DC 
20024. Telephone (202) 385-4652, fax (202) 385-4651, email to: 
albert.sayadian@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Doppler radar is a semiautomatic self-contained dead reckoning 
navigation system (radar sensor plus computer) which is not 
continuously dependent on information derived from ground based or 
external aids. The system employs radar signals to detect and measure 
ground speed and drift angle, using the aircraft compass system as its 
directional reference. Doppler is less accurate than Inertial 
Navigation System (INS), and the use of an external reference is 
required for periodic updates if acceptable position accuracy is to be 
achieved on long range flights. Use of INS and Global Positioning 
System (GPS) has rendered TSO-C68a systems obsolete. The FAA has no 
record of any applications for TSO-C68a since it was published in 1983. 
Given the obsolescence of the equipment, and the lack of industry 
interest in TSO-C68a product designs, the FAA is cancelling TSO-C68a.

Comments

    Request for comments of our proposed cancellation of TSO-C68a as 
published in 77 FR 37733, June 22, 2012, produced no comments.

Conclusion

    TSO-C68a is cancelled effective February 1, 2013.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 28, 2012.
Susan J. M. Cabler,
Assistant Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division, Aircraft 
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-21633 Filed 8-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Summary Calendar No. 00-51091 USDC No. DR-00-229-ALL-FB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus ANGEL GONZALEZ-GALLEGOS, Defendant - Appellant;

______________________ Consolidated with No. 00-51198 USDC No. DR-00-CR-383-ALL

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARCELINO CENTENO-HERRERA, Defendant - Appellant;

_____________________ Consolidated with No. 00-51323 USDC No. DR-00-CR-220-1

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus ALBINO OCHOA-DE LA FUENTE, Defendant - Appellant;* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. 2 __________________________

________________ Consolidated with No. 01-50177 USDC No. EP-00-CR-1635-ALL-H

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SERGIO ORDUNA-ALVARADO, also known as Raul Ontiveros, Defendant - Appellant.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

-------------------- October 10, 2001 Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM: *

Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(A) prov ides, among other things, that before imposing sentence in a criminal case, a district court must “veri fy that the defendant and defendant’s counsel have read and discussed” the defendant’s presentence report. The appellants in these consolidated cases argue that as
to alleged violations of this requirement to which a defendant failed to object, this court should not review for plain error or harmless error, but should automatically remand for resentencing. United Stats v. Esparza-Gonzalez ,

__ F.3d __, 2001 WL 1135317 (5 th Cir. Sep. 26, 2001), rejects their argument and concludes that this3

court reviews for plain error an alleged violation of the verification requirement to which the defen dant failed to object below. The appellants did not object in the district court to the verification requir ement violations that they now allege occurred. As in E sparza-Gonzalez , none of the appellants a rgues that he was prejudiced by any s uch violation or even that he did
not read or discuss wit h his counsel his presentence report. Appellants have not demonstrated plain error. See id.

The appellants’ other arguments are foreclosed by circuit precedent and, as they acknowledge, are raised only in order to
p reserve them for Supreme Court review. The judgments are
AFFIRMED . We commend counsel for their lucidly argued briefs.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2016

- 4228 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NM

- 107

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

c ost

(@$8 5 /h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Replacement and

operational check 6.0 $ 510.00 $0 $ 510.00 

### 22 $ 11,220.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance: 

### 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 11,220



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 0

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour ) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### 0

. 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 

### 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this fi eld to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0616. CHAD D. BRYANT v. CARLOS TELLS.

On August 29, 2017, Chad D. Bryant and Carlos Tells both filed notices of

appeal from the trial court’s July 26, 2017 order awarding Tells $450 in this

landlord/tenant action. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the trial court order

sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice

of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Rowland v.

State, 264 Ga. 872, 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Because Bryant and Tells filed

their notices of appeal 34 days after entry of the order they seek to appeal, this appeal

is untimely and is therefore DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

January 11, 2018

01/11/2018
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50001

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KATHLEEN OLIVER BONO,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-96-CV-215

 

September 17, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, AND DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kathleen Oliver Bono, federal prisoner # 56219-080, appeals

the district court’s denial of her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. She argues that the district court erred by denying her

motion to vacate her conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), in

light of Bailey v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995). 

This court held in United States v. McPhail, 112 F.3d 197,

199 (5th Cir. 1997), that Bailey applies retroactively to cases
No. 97-50001 

-2-

on collateral review. Therefore, the sole issue in this appeal

is whether there was a sufficient factual basis for Bono’s

guilty-plea conviction for using and carrying a firearm in

relation to a drug-trafficking offense under 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1). 

In Bailey, the Supreme Court defined the “use” of a firearm,

under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), as “more than mere possession,”

including “brandishing, displaying, bartering, striking with, and

most obviously, firing or attempting to fire, a firearm.” 

Bailey, 116 S. Ct. at 505-08. Further, the Supreme Court held

that “use” of a firearm “requires evidence sufficient to show an

active employment of the firearm by the defendant, a use that

makes the firearm an operative factor in relation to the

predicate offense.” Id. at 505. Relying on Bailey, in United

States v. McPhail, this court held that “[i]t is no longer enough

to show that the defendant merely stored a weapon near drugs or

drug proceeds to establish that the defendant used the weapon

during or in relation to drug trafficking activities.” McPhail,

112 F.3d at 199. 

In this case, the two loaded handguns, upon which the 18

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) conviction was based, were found on top of a

bookcase in the living room during the execution of the search

warrant. Under Bailey and McPhail, this is an insufficient

factual basis for a “use” conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1).
No. 97-50001 

-3-

Nor do the facts support a conviction under the “carrying”

prong of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). The plain meaning of “carry”

means to “‘to hold, wear or have upon one’s person.’”

Consequently, the appellant was not carrying a firearm within the

meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). See United States v. Garcia,

86 F.3d 394, 403 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted) (stating

words of a statute should be given their plain meaning), cert.

denied, 117 S. Ct. 752 (1997). 

Accordingly, we vacate Bono’s conviction under 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1), dismiss the charge on that count, and remand the

case for resentencing on the remaining counts for which she was

convicted. 

VACATE and REMAND.
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 of
Macquarie Equipment Leasing Fund, LLC (the Fund) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Fahy, Principal Executive
Officer of the Fund, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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 result of operations of the Fund.



/s/     David FahyName: David Fahy Title: President of the Manager and Principal Executive Officer of RegistrantDate: February 15, 2011


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 479 

Censuring Representative Bennie Thompson. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2023 

Mr. GAETZ (for himself and Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ethics 

RESOLUTION 

Censuring Representative Bennie Thompson. 

Whereas, on December 30, 2022, Representative Bennie 

Thompson, then Chair of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (‘‘January 6th Committee’’), sent a letter to the 

Biden White House, along with property of the House of 

Representatives, in violation of longstanding Rules of the 

House of Representatives, including the Rules for the 

117th Congress; 

Whereas, on December 30, 2022, Representative Thompson 

also sent a similar letter and records to the Department 

of Homeland Security, also in violation of the Rules; 

Whereas, as a committee chair, Representative Thompson 

was required, under rule VII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, to turn over all committee records to 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 479 IH 

the Clerk of the House at the close of Congress, in order 

to further transparency and to preserve the historical 

record of Congress; 

Whereas Representative Thompson intentionally violated this 

rule, as evidenced by his letters to the executive branch, 

which expressly detail his ‘‘expectation’’ that the House 

property improperly turned over to the executive branch 

would eventually be turned over to the National Archives, 

an expectation that could only have salience if the materials turned over were, in fact, congressional records; 

Whereas Congress still is unsure of the scope of the records 

kept or improperly destroyed by the January 6th Committee, as evidenced by the May 18, 2023 letter from 

Representative Barry Loudermilk, chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on House Administration, to the National Archives requesting a catalogue of records produced by the January 6th Committee; 

and 

Whereas, under rule VII and rule XI of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives for the 117th and 118th Congresses, the responsibility to ensure proper recordkeeping 

by a committee resides with the committee chairperson, 

a responsibility that Representative Thompson intentionally violated or recklessly neglected: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That— 

2 (1) Representative Bennie Thompson of Mis3 sissippi be censured; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 479 IH 

1 (2) Representative Bennie Thompson forthwith 

2 present himself in the well of the House of Rep3 resentatives for the pronouncement of censure; 

4 (3) Representative Bennie Thompson be cen5 sured with the public reading of this resolution by 

6 the Speaker; and 

7 (4) Representative Bennie Thompson be, and is 

8 hereby, removed from the Committee on Homeland 

9 Security. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 21.0

Subsidiaries



|           |  |                        
|---------- |  | -----------------------
|Registrant |  | Ocean Shore Holding Co.



|                                     |  |                     |   |  |                                      
|------------------------------------ |  | ------------------- | - |  | -------------------------------------
|Subsidiaries                         |  | PercentageOwnership |   |  | Jurisdiction orState of Incorporation
|Ocean City Home Bank                 |  | 100                 | % |  | United States                        
|Seashore Financial Services, LLC (1) |  | 100                 | % |  | New Jersey                           



|(1) | Wholly-owned subsidiary of Ocean City Home Bank.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------
Sharonda BRADFORD a/k/a Sharynda Roberson, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 81271

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: April 9, 2019

S. Kate Webber, Kansas City for appellant.

Evan J. Buchheim, Jefferson City for respondent.

Before Division Two: Edward R. Ardini, Jr., P.J., and Alok Ahuja and Gary D. Witt, JJ.

*240**ORDER**

PER CURIAM:

In 2010, Sharonda Bradford pleaded guilty to first-degree assault, armed criminal action, three counts of felony possession of a controlled substance, and one count of misdemeanor possession of up to thirty-five grams of marijuana. Bradford was sentenced to probation and a suspended term of fifteen years' incarceration for first-degree assault. She was sentenced to terms of imprisonment on the other counts, which were immediately executed. After Bradford's term of incarceration ended on her other sentences, the court found that Bradford had violated her probation on the first-degree assault sentence, and ordered that her sentence for that offense be executed. After her delivery to the Department of Corrections to serve her first-degree assault sentence, Bradford filed a *pro se* motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035. Relying on *Swallow v. State* , 398 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. 2013) and the version of Rule 24.035(b) in effect at the time, the circuit court dismissed Bradford's motion as untimely because it was not filed within 180 days of her **initial** delivery to the Department of Corrections. Bradford appeals. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided an unpublished memorandum to the parties setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit
32.02





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 Amended Annual Report of Bloggerwave, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K/A for the year ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ulrik
Svane Thomsen, I, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:





(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.





/s/ Ulrik Svane ThomsenBy:
      Ulrik Svane ThomsenChief
      Financial Officer





Dated:
January 24, 2011





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.