alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Presidential Documents

22447

Federal Register

Vol. 60, No. 87

Friday, May 5, 1995

Title 3—

The President

Presidential Determination No. 95–18 of April 21, 1995

Determination Under Section 2(b)(2)(D) of the Export-Import

Bank Act of 1945, as Amended: People’s Republic of China

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to Section 2(b)(2)(D) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as

amended, I determine that it is in the national interest for the ExportImport Bank of the United States to extend a loan in the amount of approximately $237,253,000 to the People’s Republic of China in connection with

the purchase of U.S. equipment and services for the expansion of a power

plant in Dalian, Liaoning Province.

You are authorized and directed to report this determination to the Congress

and publish it in the Federal Register

œ–.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, April 21, 1995. [FR Doc. 95–11339

Filed 5–4–95; 9:42 am]

Billing code 4710–10–M
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 18 34 V

UNPUBLISHED

EUGENE MONTGOMERY

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: September 29, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;
Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain

- Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Joseph Alexander Vuckovich, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Washington, DC , for
petitioner.

Camille Michelle Collett , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On November 29, 2018

, Eu gene Montgomery filed a petition for compensation

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain

- Bar r é syndrome ( “ GBS ” )

as a result of an in fluenza ( “ flu ” ) vaccine administered on January 17, 2017 . Petit ion at 1

. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On September 25, 2020

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, R espondent states that “ [P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set

forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (Table) and the Qual ifications and Aids to Interpretation

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

- Government Act

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).2

(QAI), which afford [ P]etitioner a presump tion of causation if the onset of GBS occurs between three and forty

- two days after a se asonal flu va ccination and there is no apparent

alternative cause ”

. Id. at 4

. Respondent further agrees that no other causes for

Petitioner ’ s GBS were ide ntified and the statutory six month sequela requirement has

been satisf ied. Id.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25885-25886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12017]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration


Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part

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

ACTION: Notice of initiation of antidumping and countervailing duty 
administrative reviews and requests for revocation in part.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received 
requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders and findings with April anniversary dates. 
In accordance with the Commerce Regulations, we are initiating those 
administrative reviews. The Department also received requests to revoke 
two antidumping duty orders and one finding in part.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Holly A Kuga, Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: (202) 
482-4737.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 
CFR 353.22(a) and 355.22(a) (1994), for administrative reviews of 
various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with 
April anniversary dates. The Department also received timely requests 
to revoke in part the antidumping duty orders on [[Page 25886]] certain 
fresh cut flowers from Mexico and color television receivers from 
Korea, and the antidumping finding on roller chain, other than bicycle, 
from Japan.

Initiation of Reviews

    In accordance with sections 19 CFR 353.22(c) and 355.22(c), we are 
initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders and findings. The Department is not 
initiating an administrative review of any exporters and/or producers 
who were not named in a review request because such exporters and/or 
producers were not specified as required under Sec. 353.22(a) (19 CFR 
353.22(a)). We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not 
later than April 30, 1996.
    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under 
administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 353.34(b) 
and 355.34(b).
    These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 
751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 
CFR 353.22(c)(1) and 355.22(c)(1).

    Dated: May 10, 1995.
Roland L. MacDonald
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance
[FR Doc. 95-12017 Filed 5-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
#### Akbar Sharrif ABU-SHABAZZ, a/k/a Charles2 x Cox, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. William W. SONDERVAN, Commissioner; Robert J. Kupec, ECI Warden; George Kaloroumakis, ECI Assistant Warden; Ronald B. Dryden, ECI Chief of Security; Chris Tyler, Administrative Aide; Gene Howe, ECI Arc Officer; Robert Hutchinson, MHC Warden; Joseph P. Sacchet, MHC Warden; Prison Health Service, Incorporated; R. Knorr, RCI Protestant Chaplain; Doctor Bergman, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-6361.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 13, 2004.

Decided: May 20, 2004.

Akbar Sharrif Abu-Shabazz, Appellant pro se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Glenn William Bell, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland; Donald Joseph Crawford, Aldelman, Sheff & Smith, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Akbar Sharrif Abu-Shabazz appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Abu-Shabazz v. Sondervan,*No. CA-03-1012-8-AW (D. Md. filed Feb. 17, 2004 & entered Feb. 18, 2004). We dispense 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*
Exhibit 17

- Filed Under Seal -

Case 5:17-cv-00551-LHK Document 285-18 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   In connection with the Annual Report of Big Bear Resources Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Scott C. Houghton, President/Treasurer/CEO/CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    /s/ Scott C. Houghton Scott C. Houghton, President, Treasurer, CEO, CFO Dated:  March 13, 2008
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 20, 2013

p1113 

# Order

Clerk November 20, 2013

147335 & (45)

HAROLD HUNTER, JR.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant/

Cross

- Appellee,

v SC: 147335

COA: 306018

Genesee CC: 10

- 094081

- NI

DAVID SISCO and AUTO CLUB INSURANCE

ASSOCIATION,

Defendants,

and

CITY OF FLINT TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant

- Appellee/

Cross

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 2, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross

appellant are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the

questions pr esented should be reviewed by this Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1221

In Re: ANTHONY DOVE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: May 26, 2016 Decided: May 31, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit 

Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Dove, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Dove petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an 

order compelling the State of North Carolina to allow him to 

file a new motion for appropriate relief. We conclude that Dove

is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only 

in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 

U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 

516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available 

only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. 

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 

1988).

This court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus 

relief against state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of 

Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does 

not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, Dist. 

of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 

(1983). 

The relief sought by Dove is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Fernando BUSTILLO, petitioner v. Art BEELER, et al.

No. 12-8723.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
PFIZER, INC., petitioner, v. LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS

No. 12-300.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

*2850Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,897,099
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,968,868
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,897,099
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,769
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,968,868
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,672,341
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,630,565
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,776
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .45
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert G. Gargus, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



/S/ ROBERT G. GARGUSRobert G. Gargus, Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer


Dated: September 4, 2009
Exhibit No. 32.1
----------------
Form 10-QSB
Parallel Technologies, Inc.
File No. 0-19276

          Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Parallel  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Glenn
A. Little,  Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  the Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: July 16, 2004                               By:     /s/ Glenn A. Little
      -------------                                  ---------------------------
                                                                 Glenn A. Little
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


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

Вы бы хотели видеть этих людей в 

своей кухне?

Рвота

Больное горло с Пожелтение кожи и 

высокой температурой глаз (желтуха)

Так отчего же вы пошли бы на 

работу, если больны?

Оберегайте людей повсюду. Если 

вы больны - оставайтесь дома.
Вы бы хотели видеть этих людей в 

своей кухне?

Понос Рвота

Больное горло с 

высокой температурой

Пожелтение кожи и 

глаз (желтуха)

Так отчего же вы пошли бы на 

работу, если больны?

Оберегайте людей повсюду. Если 

вы больны - оставайтесь дома.
Вы бы хотели видеть этих людей в 

своей кухне?

Понос Рвота

Больное горло с 

высокой температурой

Пожелтение кожи и

глаз (желтуха)

Так отчего же вы пошли бы на 

работу, если больны?

Оберегайте людей повсюду. Если 

вы больны - оставайтесь дома.
Вы бы хотели видеть этих людей в 

своей кухне?

Понос Рвота

Больное горло с 

высокой температурой

Пожелтение кожи и 

глаз (желтуха)

Так отчего же вы пошли бы на 

работу, если больны?

Оберегайте людей повсюду. Если 

вы больны - оставайтесь дома.
Phillip A. HAMILTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9111.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
John W. DOBBS, petitioner, v. Michael D. CREWS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 12-7709.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
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 Quarterly Report of Thunder Mountain Gold Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, E. James Collord, President, Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

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



(2)

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





/s/ E. James Collord

By  __________________________________

E.  James Collord

President, Director and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  May 16, 2011
In re Carl Marion WELLS, petitioner.

No. 12-9728.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 30, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20-1669 Lower Tribunal No. 18-9086

________________ Trandworld, Inc., Petitioner,
vs. Justin Rubin, et al., Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Martin Zilber, Judge. Tirado-Luciano & Tirado, and Monica Tirado and Alex Tirado-Luciano, for petitioner. Siegfried Rivera, and B. Michael Clark, Jr., for respondents. Before LINDSEY, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Petition dismissed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(c)(1) (providing that a petition for certiorari must “be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed”); see also Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Lewis, 122 So. 3d 504, 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (dismissing untimely petition for lack of jurisdiction).
# Europeiska unionens C 447A/12 d

| | ISSN 1977-1061 |
| --- | --- |
| Europeiska unionens
  officiella tidning | C 447A |
| | |
| Svensk utgåva | Meddelanden och upplysningar | 61 årgången12 december 2018 |

ISSN 1977-1061

Europeiska unionens

officiella tidning

C 447A

Svensk utgåva

Meddelanden och upplysningar

61 årgången12 december 2018

---

| Innehållsförteckning | Sida |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Yttranden |
| | ADMINISTRATIVA FÖRFARANDEN |
| | Europeiska bankmyndigheten |
| 2018/C 447 A/01 | EBA söker en ordförande (lönenivå AD 15) – Paris, Frankrike – EBA TA 21/2018 | 1 |

Innehållsförteckning

Sida

V   Yttranden

ADMINISTRATIVA FÖRFARANDEN

Europeiska bankmyndigheten

2018/C 447 A/01

EBA söker en ordförande (lönenivå AD 15) – Paris, Frankrike – EBA TA 21/2018

1

---

| SV | |
| --- | --- |

SV

---

V Yttranden

ADMINISTRATIVA FÖRFARANDEN

Europeiska bankmyndigheten

| 12.12.2018 | SV | Europeiska unionens officiella tidning | CA 447/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2018

SV

Europeiska unionens officiella tidning

CA 447/1

---

EBA SÖKER EN ORDFÖRANDE (LÖNENIVÅ AD 15) – PARIS, FRANKRIKE – EBA TA 21/2018

(2018/C 447 A/01)

Europeiska bankmyndigheten (EBA) är en oberoende EU-myndighet som inrättades den 1 januari 2011 genom Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EU) nr 1093/2010 (1).

I syfte att förbättra funktionen av EU:s inre marknad bidrar EBA till att säkerställa en hög grad av effektiv och konsekvent reglering och tillsyn inom sina kompetensområden. Myndigheten skyddar även allmänna intressen såsom det finansiella systemets stabilitet, marknadernas och de finansiella produkternas transparens och skyddet för insättare och investerare.

EBA arbetar för att förebygga tillsynsarbitrage och säkerställa likvärdiga förutsättningar, stärker den internationella samordningen mellan tillsynsmyndigheterna, främjar en enhetlig tillsyn och ger råd till unionens institutioner inom områdena för reglering och tillsyn av banker, betalningar och elektroniska betalmedel, samt tillhörande frågor som rör företagsstyrning, revision och ekonomisk redovisning.

Ordföranden är en oberoende yrkesverksam på heltid och anställd vid EBA. Han eller hon kommer att vara ansvarig inför EBA:s tillsynsstyrelse och fortlöpande rapportera till tillsynsstyrelsen om EBA:s verksamhet.

Vänligen besök vår webbsida för mer detaljerad information beträffande den ledigförklarade tjänsten och om ansökningsförfarandet:

https://eba.europa.eu/about-us/careers

Ansökningar som innehåller en meritförteckning, helst i Europass-format, ett personligt brev och ett ifyllt förklaringsformulär, daterade och undertecknade, ska skickas på engelska till adressen EBAChair-Applications@eba.europa.eu senast den 11 januari 2019 kl. 12.00 lokal tid i London.

---

(1)  Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EU) nr 1093/2010 av den 24 november 2010 om inrättande av en europeisk tillsynsmyndighet (Europeiska bankmyndigheten), om ändring av beslut nr 716/2009/EG och om upphävande av kommissionens beslut 2009/78/EG (EUT L 331, 15.12.2010, s. 12)

---