alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26716-26717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12198]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Order No. 740]


Revision of Grant of Authority, Subzone 116A, Star Enterprise 
(Oil Refinery); Jefferson/Hardin Counties, Texas

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) authorized 
subzone status at the refinery complex of Star Enterprise in Jefferson/
Hardin Counties (Port Arthur area), Texas, in 1993, subject to three 
conditions (Subzone 116A, Board Order 668, 59 FR 61, 1/3/94);
    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade of Southeast Texas, grantee of FTZ 116, 
has requested pursuant to Sec. 400.32(b)(1)(i), a revision (filed 3/27/
95, A(32b1)-3-95; FTZ Doc. 19-95, assigned 5/2/95) of the grant of 
authority for FTZ Subzone 116A which would make its scope of authority 
identical to that recently granted for [[Page 26717]] FTZ Subzone 199A 
at the refinery complex of Amoco Oil Company, Texas City, Texas (Board 
Order 731, 60 FR 13118, 3/10/95); and,
    Whereas, the request has been reviewed and the Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration, acting for the Board pursuant to 
Sec. 400.32(b)(1), concurs in the recommendation of the Executive 
Secretary, and approves the request;
    Now Therefore, the Board hereby orders that, subject to the Act and 
the Board's regulations, including Sec. 400.28, Board Order 668 is 
revised to replace the three conditions currently listed in the Order 
with the following conditions:

    1. Foreign status (19 CFR 146.41, 146.42) products consumed as 
fuel for the refinery shall be subject to the applicable duty rate.
    2. Privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41) shall be elected on 
all foreign merchandise admitted to the subzone, except that non-
privileged foreign (NPF) status (19 CFR 146.42) may be elected on 
refinery inputs covered under HTSUS Subheadings # 2709.00.1000-# 
2710.00.1050 and # 2710.00.2500 which are used in the production of:

--Petrochemical feedstocks and refinery by-products (FTZ staff 
report, Appendix B);
--Products for export; and,
--Products eligible for entry under HTSUS # 9808.00.30 and 
9808.00.40 (U.S. Government purchases).

    3. The authority with regard to the NPF option is initially 
granted until September 30, 2000, subject to extension.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of May 1995.
Paul L. Joffe,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

    Attest:
John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-12198 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:14-CR-11-TLS 

)

BRUCE T. KING )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 20], filed on July 1, 2014. The Defendant has waived objection to the

Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 20] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 1 of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and

the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate

order.

SO ORDERED on July 18, 2014.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Gregory Lee WILSON, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 13-6674.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Office, denied.
Mary JONES and Chelsea Jones, petitioners, v. BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

No. 13-6769.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Tony D. BURTS, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 12-9416.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, 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 Annual Report of Platinum Studios, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott Mitchell Rosenberg, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.

 

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.

 

 

March 31, 2010

 

 

/s/ Scott Mitchell Rosenberg

 

Scott Mitchell Rosenberg

Chief Executive Officer and 

Chairman

 

 

----
United States District Court 

Northern District of Indiana 

Hammond Division 

 Civil Action No.: 2:14-CR-4 JVB 

 

ORDER 

 Defendant Rita Law filed a motion (DE 43) requesting that some of her personal property 

that has been seized by the government be returned to her so that she can review its contents in 

preparation for trial. The Court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge John Martin for report 

and recommendation. Judge Martin reports that the Government has stayed the forfeiture 

proceedings and agreed to provide copies of the items requested by Ms. Law. In turn, Judge 

Martin recommends that the motion be denied as moot. No party has objected to Judge Martin’s 

report and recommendation. 

 Accordingly, the Court accepts Judge Martin’s Report and Recommendation and denies 

Ms. Law’s motion for return of personal property (DE 43) as moot. 

 SO ORDERED on May 6, 2014. 

                      s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

 JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

RITA LAW
Designation of Designated Federal Officer for FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic 

Inclusion

By resolution of the Board of the Directors bearing Corporate Seal No. 074483, dated November

2, 2006, the Chairman is authorized to take such actions as are necessary for the establishment,

organization, and operation of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion, including

the designation of a Designated Federal Officer.

Pursuant to this authority, effective immediately, I am designating Elizabeth Ortiz, Deputy Director, 

Consumer and Community Affairs Branch, Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection, as the sole 

Designated Federal Officer for this Committee responsible for those duties required by the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

This designation supersedes all prior designations of Designated Federal Officer for this Committee.

 12-14-21_________ __________________________

Date Jelena McWilliams

cc: Nick Podsiadly

 Mark Pearce

 Elizabeth Ortiz

 Jonathan Miller

 Debra Decker
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE JUAN DE DIOS ALVAREZ

CASTANEDA, a.k.a. Jose Juan Alvarez,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71094

Agency No. A095-588-250

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 17, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Jose Juan de Dios Alvarez Castaneda, a native and citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying

his motion to reconsider and reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.

FILED

JUL 25 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-71094

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider or

reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in

part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Alvarez Castaneda failed to raise, and therefore waived,

any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider and reopen. See Rizk

v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by

failing to raise it in the opening brief).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Alvarez Castaneda’s contention that he is

entitled to a continuance in order to pursue adjustment of status because he did not

present this contention to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th

Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction over contentions not raised before the

BIA). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60179

JOSE SANTOS MEJIA, also known as Jose Santos Zavala-Mejia,

Petitioner

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:

Our prior opinion, Mejia v. Sessions, 881 F.3d 421 (5th Cir. 2018), is 

withdrawn, and a revised opinion will be forthcoming.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

) 

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:14-CR-6-HAB 

) 

TRAVON RUSSELL ) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 

Before the Court is Defendant Travon Russell’s (“the Defendant’s”) letter “Requesting to 

be Modified to Halfway House” (ECF No. 103) filed on July 21, 2020. The Court construes the 

letter as Defendant’s Third Motion for Modification of Sentence. This Motion comes on the heels 

of Defendant’s first such motion wherein he sought compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) and his second motion wherein he sought to serve the remainder of his sentence 

on supervised release. This Court denied Defendant’s first motion on June 3, 2020, (ECF No. 100); 

the Court denied the second motion on June 10, 2020 (ECF No. 102). The same result follows 

with respect to this third motion. 

This Court has now thrice advised the Defendant that federal courts are limited in their 

ability to alter criminal sentences and that he must meet one of the statutory reasons for 

modification set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) or under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 to enable this Court to do 

so. Once again, Defendant’s letter falls far short of any of the statutory reasons for which this 

Court would have jurisdiction to alter or modify his sentence nor is Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 applicable 

here. Accordingly, the Court has no legal basis for which to modify Defendant’s sentence. 

Defendant’s request (ECF No. 103) is therefore, DENIED. 

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cr-00006-HAB-SLC document 104 filed 08/20/20 page 1 of 2
2 

SO ORDERED on August 20, 2020. 

 s/ Holly A. Brady 

JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cr-00006-HAB-SLC document 104 filed 08/20/20 page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Duston M. Williams, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of MaxtorCorporation;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.                                                                              /s/ Duston M. Williams   Duston M. Williams   *Executive Vice President, Finance*
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.24

                              [Quinton Letterhead]

October 9, 2003

Mr. Darryl Lustig
3 South Liberty Drive
South Barrington, IL  60010

Re:   FY 2003 Sales Bonus

DEAR DARRYL:

      The purpose of this letter is to document our previous discussions
regarding the criteria and potential amount of your FY 2003 sales bonus. This
sales bonus is separate from, and in addition to, your one-time Burdick
integration bonus, as well as your MIP participation, for FY 2003.

Your FY 2003 sales bonus will be based on the recorded revenues of all Burdick
products for the year, including the domestic, international, direct and service
portions. Your target for those revenues is $35.0 million. If you qualify for a
bonus, the bonus will be calculated by multiplying a percentage factor by the
revenues achieved, as more fully described below. However, if you do not achieve
at least 90% of your target, you will not qualify for a bonus.

If you achieve between 90% and 105% of your target, the bonus will be calculated
using a factor of 0.100%. If you achieve between 105% and 110% of your target,
the bonus will be calculated using a factor of 0.125%. If you achieve more than
110% of your target, the bonus will be calculated using a factor of 0.150%.

For example, if FY 2003 revenue for Burdick products is $34.3 million, then
34.3/35.0 = 98%. At 98%, a factor of 0.100% is used, which means that your bonus
would be $34,300,000 X 0.100% or $34,300. But if FY 2003 revenue for Burdick
products is $37.8 million, then 37.8/35.0 = 108%. At 108%, a factor of 0.125% is
used, which means that your bonus would be $37,800,000 X 0.125% or $47,250.

Your sales bonus, if any, will be paid in no later than 30-days after the
conclusion of the audit of financial statements and their filing with SEC for
the year ending December 31, 2003. The audited financial statements will be used
to assure the reasonableness of the revenue amount used in computing your bonus.
If the audit and filing with the SEC is not completed by March 31, 2004,
however, the incentive, if any, will be paid during the following month.

Separation of employment (by resignation or termination) prior to March 31, 2004
will result in forfeiture of the bonus payment.

If this is acceptable to you please indicate by signing below.

                                        Accepted:

/s/ John R. Hinson                      /s/ Darryl Lustig
John R. Hinson                          Darryl Lustig
President & CEO                         Vice President
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Modern Technology Corp (the “Company”) for the quarterended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), Anthony Welch, as Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, and Robert Churchr, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, eachhereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his and her knowledge,respectively, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
|                     | By:    | /s/ ANTHONY WELCH                       |
|--------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
| Dated: November 18, 2004 |   | Anthony Welch   Chief Executive Officer |
|                     |   |                                    |
|                     |   |                                    |
|                     | By:    | /s/ Robert Church                       |
| Dated: November 18, 2004 |   | Robert Church   Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 hasbeen provided to Modern Technology Corp. and will be retained by Modern Technology Corp. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
# L_2020415DE.01008801.xml

| 10.12.2020 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 415/88 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2020

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 415/88

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2017/815 der Kommission vom 12. Mai 2017 zur Änderung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2015/1998 hinsichtlich der Präzisierung, Harmonisierung und Vereinfachung bestimmter spezifischer Luftsicherheitsmaßnahmen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 122 vom 13. Mai 2017
  )

Seite 34, Anhang zur Änderung des Anhangs der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2015/1998, Nummer 32 zur Änderung der Anlage 6-C3, Validierungsprüfliste für ACC3 Teil 4 Anmerkung zweiter Gedankenstrich:

Anstatt:

| „— | Eine beschäftigungsbezogene Überprüfung umfasst die Feststellung der Identität der betreffenden Person anhand der zum Nachweis vorgelegten Papiere, die Erfassung von Lücken bei Beschäftigungs- und Ausbildungszeiten sowie sonstigen Lücken mindestens während der letzten fünf Jahre sowie die Aufforderung zur Unterzeichnung einer Erklärung durch die betreffende Person, in der sämtliche Straffälligkeiten in allen Staaten des Wohnsitzes mindestens während der letzten fünf Jahre aufgeführt sind (Begriffsbestimmung der Europäischen Union).“ |
| --- | --- |

„—

Eine beschäftigungsbezogene Überprüfung umfasst die Feststellung der Identität der betreffenden Person anhand der zum Nachweis vorgelegten Papiere, die Erfassung von Lücken bei Beschäftigungs- und Ausbildungszeiten sowie sonstigen Lücken mindestens während der letzten fünf Jahre sowie die Aufforderung zur Unterzeichnung einer Erklärung durch die betreffende Person, in der sämtliche Straffälligkeiten in allen Staaten des Wohnsitzes mindestens während der letzten fünf Jahre aufgeführt sind (Begriffsbestimmung der Europäischen Union).“

muss es heißen:

| „— | Eine beschäftigungsbezogene Überprüfung umfasst die Feststellung der Identität der betreffenden Person anhand der zum Nachweis vorgelegten Papiere, die Erfassung aller Beschäftigungsverhältnisse, Aus- und Weiterbildungen und jeglicher Lücken mindestens während der letzten 5 Jahre sowie die Aufforderung zur Unterzeichnung einer Erklärung durch die betreffende Person, in der sämtliche Straffälligkeiten in allen Staaten des Wohnsitzes mindestens während der letzten 5 Jahre aufgeführt sind (Begriffsbestimmung der Europäischen Union).“ |
| --- | --- |

„—

Eine beschäftigungsbezogene Überprüfung umfasst die Feststellung der Identität der betreffenden Person anhand der zum Nachweis vorgelegten Papiere, die Erfassung aller Beschäftigungsverhältnisse, Aus- und Weiterbildungen und jeglicher Lücken mindestens während der letzten 5 Jahre sowie die Aufforderung zur Unterzeichnung einer Erklärung durch die betreffende Person, in der sämtliche Straffälligkeiten in allen Staaten des Wohnsitzes mindestens während der letzten 5 Jahre aufgeführt sind (Begriffsbestimmung der Europäischen Union).“

---