alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 82 (Friday, April 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 20998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10540]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
[Docket No. 88G-0388]


Fuji Oil Co., Ltd.; Filing of Petition for Affirmation of GRAS 
Status; Amendment

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the filing 
notice for a petition (GRASP 8G0348) filed by Fuji Oil Co., Ltd., 
proposing to affirm that cocoa butter substitutes from safflower oil 
and sunflower oil are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for use as 
direct human food ingredients. This amendment is intended to clarify 
that the sunflower and safflower oils used in the manufacture of the 
petitioned cocoa butter substitute are the high-oleic rather than the 
typical high-linoleic varieties.

DATES: Comments by July 12, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch 
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, rm. 1-23, 12420 Parklawn Dr., 
Rockville, MD 20857.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nega Beru, Center for Food Safety and 
Applied Nutrition (HFS-206), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. 
SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3097.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal 
Register of January 26, 1989 (54 FR 3853), FDA announced that Fuji Oil 
Co., Ltd., 6-1, Hachiman-cho, Minami-ku, Osaka 542 Japan, had filed a 
petition (GRASP 8G0348) proposing to affirm that cocoa butter 
substitutes from safflower oil and sunflower oil are GRAS for use as 
direct human food ingredients. The agency recognizes that the terms 
``safflower oil'' and ``sunflower oil'' normally refer to the 
traditional high-linoleic varieties. However, the agency has determined 
that the proposed starting materials for the manufacture of the 
petitioned cocoa butter substitutes are the high-oleic rather than the 
typical high-linoleic safflower or sunflower oils. Therefore, the 
agency is amending the filing notice to make this distinction clear.

    Interested persons may, on or before July 12, 1995, submit to the 
Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments with respect 
to the above mentioned change only. Two copies of any comments are to 
be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comment are 
to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the 
heading of this document. A copy of the petition and received comments 
may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday.

    Dated: April 19, 1995.

Alan M. Rulis,

Acting Director, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition.

[FR Doc. 95-10540 Filed 4-27-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1472 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1472

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and six

                                 An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 167 East 124th Street in New York, New York, as the ``Tito Puente Post 
                           Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TITO PUENTE POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 167 East 124th Street in New York, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Tito Puente Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Tito 
Puente Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Steven D. GOBERT, petitioner, v. LOUISIANA.

No. 12-8925.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 134 

To prevent abuse of the special allowance subsidies under the Federal Family 

Education Loan Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2005 

Mr. KILDEE (for himself, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, and Mr. GEORGE MILLER of 

California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To prevent abuse of the special allowance subsidies under 

the Federal Family Education Loan Program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Emergency Loan 

5 Abuse Prevention Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF EXCESSIVE ALLOWANCES. 

7 Section 438(b)(2)(B) of the Higher Education Act of 

8 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087–1(b)(2)(B)) is amended by striking 

9 clause (v) and inserting the following: 
2 

•HR 134 IH 

1 ‘‘(v) This subparagraph shall not 

2 apply to— 

3 ‘‘(I) any loan made or purchased 

4 after the date of enactment of the 

5 Emergency Loan Abuse Prevention 

6 Act of 2004; 

7 ‘‘(II) any loan that had not quali8 fied before such date of enactment for 

9 receipt of a special allowance payment 

10 determined under this subparagraph; 

11 or 

12 ‘‘(III) any loan made or pur13 chased before such date of enactment 

14 with funds described in the first or 

15 second sentence of clause (i) if— 

16 ‘‘(aa) the obligation de17 scribed in the first such sentence 

18 has, after such date of enact19 ment, matured, or been retired or 

20 defeased; or 

21 ‘‘(bb) the maturity date or 

22 the date of retirement of the obli23 gation described in the first such 

24 sentence has, after such date of 

25 enactment, been extended.’’. 
3 

•HR 134 IH 

1 SEC. 3. EXPENDITURE OF SAVINGS ON INCREASED PELL 

2 GRANTS. 

3 From any amounts in the Treasury not otherwise ap4 propriated, there is appropriated for each of the fiscal 

5 years beginning after the date of enactment of this Act 

6 an additional amount for the purposes of increasing the 

7 maximum Pell grant in each Act providing annual appro8 priations for the Pell grant program under subpart 1 of 

9 part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

10 (20 U.S.C. 1070a) that is equal to the amount that is 

11 determined annually by the Congressional Budget Office 

12 to be the amount by which expenditures under section 438 

13 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1087–1) are reduced for such fiscal 

14 year by the enactment of section 2 of this Act. 

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Red Sun Mining, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ended July 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Matthew Taylor, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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: October 14, 2008                   By: /s/ Matthew Taylor
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Matthew Taylor
                                             Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shalL not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
Adib Eddie Ramez MAKDESSI, petitioner, v. VIRGINIA.

No. 12-7538.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

             
                                            GALILEO CORPORATION
                                    CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Three Months Ended                Six Months Ended
                                                              March 31,                       March 31,
                                                        1997           1996             1997            1996
                                                   ----------------------------      ---------------------------
<S>                                                <C>               <C>            <C>               <C>       
Primary
  Average shares outstanding                         6,847,442        6,793,294       6,841,887        6,778,352

  Net effect of dilutive stock options - based
  on the treasury stock method using
  average market price                                      --          141,026              --          121,267
                                                   ----------------------------     ---------------------------- 

Total                                                6,847,442        6,934,320       6,841,887        6,899,619
                                                   ============================     ============================

Net income (loss)                                  $(7,378,000)      $  827,000     $(8,544,000)      $2,351,000

Per share amount                                   $     (1.08)      $     0.12     $     (1.25)      $     0.34



Fully Diluted
  Average shares outstanding                         6,847,442        6,793,294       6,841,887        6,778,352

  Net effect of dilutive stock options - based
  on the treasury stock method using the
  quarter-end market price, if higher than
  average market price                                      --          158,497              --          129,955
                                                   ----------------------------     ---------------------------- 

Total                                                6,847,442        6,951,791       6,841,887        6,908,307
                                                   ============================     ============================

Net income (loss)                                  $(7,378,000)      $  827,000     $(8,544,000)      $2,351,000

Per share amount                                   $     (1.08)      $     0.12     $     (1.25)      $     0.34

</TABLE>





                                       32
Christopher Y. PERSON, petitioner, v. VIRGINIA.

No. 12-9196.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
Michael D. BIGGS, petitioner, v. Michael D. CREWS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 12-9265.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Curtis PITTER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9539.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Timothy Scott HARRIMAN, petitioner, v. Rick THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 12-8459.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
#### Judy L. HEFLIN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 03-2021.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 31, 2004.

Decided April 28, 2004.

J. Kevin Morton, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. John W. Stone, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina; Robert Triba, Regional Chief Counsel, Lisa G. Smoller, Assistant Regional Counsel, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Judy L. Heflin appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to affirm the Commissioner’s denial of social security disability benefits. On appeal, Heflin maintains that the Commissioner’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence because the Administrative Law Judge allegedly ignored the treating physician’s opinion without providing an explanation for doing so. We affirm.

We must uphold the district court’s disability determination if it is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); *Hays v. Sullivan,*907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir.1990). We have reviewed the record in light of Heflin’s arguments on appeal and find no reversible error. Furthermore, we find sufficient evidence in the record to support the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits. Accordingly, we affirm. We dis*124pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Richard Dale MONTGOMERY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9645.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Johnathan David McCUNE, petitioner, v. MISSOURI.

No. 12-9271.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6872

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHIRLENE REESE BOONE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. James C. Fox,

Senior District Judge. (2:10-cr-00054-F-1; 2:12-cv-00081-F)

Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shirlene Reese Boone, Appellant Pro Se. William Miller Gilmore, 

Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Shailika 

K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Shirlene Reese Boone seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Boone has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Boone’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Gary Donald HANNEMAN, petitioner, v. Catherine CORTEZ MASTO, Attorney General of Nevada, et al.

No. 12-9143.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 34.5**

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

U.S. Bank National Association 

We haveexamined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth inItem 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities platform (the Platform), as defined in management’s assertion, as of November 30, 2010, and for theperiod from December 1, 2009 through November 30, 2010, except for servicing criteria 1122 (d)(1)(i)-(iv), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(vi)-(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i), 1122 (d)(4)(i)-(ii), and 1122 (d)(4)(iv)-(xiv), which the Company hasdetermined are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the servicing Platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is toexpress an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adoptedby the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as weconsidered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to thePlatform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions andservicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances oramounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does notprovide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion thatthe Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of November 30, 2010, and for the period from December 1, 2009 through November 30, 2010, for the Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, inall material respects. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

February 4, 2011
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.41

                              [Company Letterhead]

January 21, 2004


                                LETTER AGREEMENT

Marian Sanfilippo, Trustee
John E. Sanfilippo Irrv Trust Agreement Dated 10/08/96
2299 Busse Road
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007


        In connection with a public offering of the Common Stock of John B.
Sanfilippo & Son, Inc. (the "Company"), you have indicated a desire to include
in such offering 112,000 shares of the Common Stock of the Company owned or
controlled by you, plus an additional number of shares to be determined pursuant
to the underwriters' over-allotment option. All such shares you wish to include
in the public offering are presently held in the form of Class A Common Stock of
the Company ("Class A Stock") and would have to be converted into shares of
Common Stock to be included in the offering.

        By signing this Letter Agreement, you agree that, simultaneously upon
the purchase of the Company Common Stock by the underwriters in connection with
the public offering, you shall convert into shares of Company Common Stock (1)
111,200 shares of Class A Stock, plus (2) the number of shares of your Class A
Stock equal to the number of shares of Company Common Stock the underwriters
elect to purchase from you pursuant to their over-allotment option.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, you and the Company agree that such conversion
will not in any way be deemed effective (including, without limitation, for
purposes of Part 4 of the Company's Restated Certificate of Incorporation)
unless the underwriters purchase our Common Stock. If the underwriters do not
purchase your shares, none of your Class A Stock shall have been converted
pursuant hereto.

        Under no circumstances shall this Letter Agreement be deemed to
constitute a written notice of conversion under Part 4(f) of the Company's
Restated Certificate of Incorporation.


                                Very truly yours,

                                /s/ MICHAEL J. VALENTINE

                                Michael J. Valentine
                                John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc.
                                Executive Vice President Finance, Chief
                                  Financial Officer and Secretary





                                            /s/ MARIAN SANFILIPPO
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                       Marian Sanfilippo, Trustee of the John E.
                                        Sanfilippo Irrv Trust Agreement Dated
                                                      10/08/96