alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 173 (Friday, September 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50790-50791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19504]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

[[Page 50791]]

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee 
will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public 
comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the 
Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, October 28, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilbert Martinez at 1-888-912-1227 or 
(737) 800-4060.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee 
will be held Thursday, October 28, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time via 
teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit 
written statements for consideration. For more information please 
contact Gilbert Martinez at 1-888-912-1227 or (737-800-4060), or write 
TAP Office 3651 S IH-35, STOP 1005 AUSC, Austin, TX 78741, or post 
comments to the website: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to 
the IRS and other TAP related topics. Public input is welcomed.

    Dated: September 3, 2021.
Kevin Brown,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2021-19504 Filed 9-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

MAIRA HORTA MOSS, ) ) No. OP 23

- 0377 Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) CHAD SEHECHAL, ) **ORDER TO**  **DISMISS** ) Respondent, and ) ) THE HONORABLE CH RISTOPHER) ABBOTT, Presiding Ju dge, ) ) Respondent. ) Upon receipt of the Petitioner ’ s Unopposed Motion to Dismiss , and good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petitioner ’ s motion is GRANTED. Each party shall pay its own costs and fees and this matter is dismissed without prejudice

.

Electronically signed by: James Jeremiah Shea Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 20 2023

07/20/2023

Case Number: OP 23-0377
#### In the Matter of Steve Stroman, Appellant, v Peter E. Corning, as a County Court Justice, Respondent.

Submitted February 5, 2007;

decided March 27, 2007

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.

Judge Pigott taking no part.
##### 



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF CNL HOTELS & RESORTS, INC.
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of CNL Hotels &
Resorts, Inc. (the registrant);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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included 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 in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrants fourth fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors:
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 By: /s/ Thomas J. Hutchison IIIName: Thomas J. Hutchison IIIDate:
April 11, 2007
    
    Title: Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. WR-78,833-01 EX PARTE CID ARTECONA , Applicant
ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 052550 IN THE 15TH DISTRICT COURT FROM GRAYSON COUNTY
Per curiam. OPINION 

### Pursuant to the provisions ofArticle 11.07 ofthe Texas Code ofCriminal Procedure, the clerk ofthe trial court transmitted to this Courtthis application for a writ ofhabeas corpus. Exparte 

### Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted oftwo counts of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to imprisonment for life on each count. The Fifth Courtof Appeals affirmed his convictions. Artecona v. State, No. 05-09-01283-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet). 

### Applicant contends that he was denied the opportunity to file a pro se petition for discretionary review (PDR). We remanded this application for findings offact and conclusions of law. Afterreviewing the record, we conclude that Applicant was denied the opportunity to file aproP.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

5B DQW-N3B -7S3202: WR-78,833-01 5TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK LISA MATZ 600 COMMERCE 2ND FLOOR DALLAS TX 75202 

## ||v,lii|i!fi|l|1.1t|.it1ali.i.|....lil|<1Bli>.i|liiit---alf->tls>
#### BAO MING XU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-73894.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*713Submitted April 16, 2007.*

Filed April 18, 2007.

Gerald Karikari, Esq., Fengling Liu, Law Office of Liu Yu, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Daniel E. Goldman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Bao Ming Xu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (the “Convention”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

The IJ found that Xu was not credible based upon the discrepancy between Xu’s airport interview and his subsequent testimony regarding the reason he fled China. While statements given during airport interviews are not always valuable impeachment sources, *see Singh v. INS,*292 F.3d 1017, 1021-24 (9th Cir.2002), here the interpreter who conducted the airport interview testified at the asylum hearing and the record contains sufficient information about the circumstances under which the interview was conducted to ensure the accuracy and completeness of Xu’s statement. *See Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 962-63 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, the IJ reasonably determined that the airport interview statement was a reliable impeachment source. *See id.*at 963. Because the inconsistency identified by the IJ goes to *714the heart of Xu’s claim, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. *See Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001).

Because Xu cannot meet the lower standard of eligibility for asylum, he has failed to show that he is entitled to withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Xu’s Convention claim is based on the same testimony that was found not credible, and he points to no other evidence that the IJ should have considered in making the Convention determination, thus his Convention claim also fails. *See id.*at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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 PNG Ventures, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Cem Hacioglu,
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.





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.





The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350
and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing
of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.








Dated:  April
14, 2009





/s/
      Cem HaciogluCem
      HaciogluChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
#### MARY JANNARONE, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. JOSEPH CALAMONERI, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

See same case below: 65 *N. J. Super.*472.

*Mr. Robert G. Gruhin*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Lum, Biunno*c(s *Tompkins, Mr. Peter W. Thomas*and *Mr. Theodore L. Abeles*for the respondent.

May 29, 1961.

Denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Blount International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Calvin E. Jenness,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i)            The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periodsexpressed in the report.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BlountInternational, Inc. and will be retained by Blount International, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

 

Date: August 7, 2009

 

 
| /s/ Calvin E. Jenness      |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| Calvin E. Jenness          |
| Senior Vice President  and |
| Chief Financial Officer    |

 

----
# C_2021066EN.01003301.xml

| 26.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 66/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 66/33

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10116 — ION/NN/bpfBOUW/IRP JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 66/03)

On 17 February 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10116. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10116. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
EXHIBIT 6


    CONSENT OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------



We hereby consent to (i) the inclusion in Canadian Natural  Resources  Limited's
Annual  Report on Form 40-F for the year ended  December 31, 2008;  and (ii) the
incorporation by reference in the  registration  statement on Form F-9 (File No.
333-146056), of our audit report dated March 4, 2009 on the consolidated balance
sheets of Canadian Natural  Resources  Limited as at December 31, 2008 and 2007,
and the consolidated statements of earnings, shareholder's equity, comprehensive
income  and cash  flows for each of the  years in the  three-year  period  ended
December  31, 2008 and the  effectiveness  of internal  control  over  financial
reporting of Canadian Natural Resources Limited as of December 31, 2008.



Calgary, Alberta
March 25, 2009
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph CANTONE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-50889

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 2, 2007.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western *467District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Stanley Lee Schwieger, Law Offices of Stan Schwieger, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Joseph Cantone appeals his sentence, following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute at least 50 grams of methamphetamine. Although Cantone concedes his sentence is reviewed for reasonableness under this court’s *post-Booker*precedent, *e.g., United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.2005), he asserts the presumption-of-reasonableness standard is unconstitutional. Needless to say, absent changed, controlling authority, a panel of this court is bound by our circuit’s precedent. *E.g., United States v. Short,*181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir.1999).

Cantone further contends his 210 month sentence, which was at the bottom of the guideline range, is unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because it is greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals. Cantone has *not*shown his sentence is unreasonable. *See Mares,*402 F.3d at 519.

*AFFIRMED.*

*

 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.
# C_2021352EN.01000201.xml

| 2.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10296 — EPCG/ECMI/EROSKI S.Coop/Supratuc2020)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 352/02)

On 13 August 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10296. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10296. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
# L_2010205EN.01001101.xml

| 6.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 205/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 205/11

---

Corrigendum to Political and Security Committee Decision Atalanta/3/2010 (2010/317/CFSP) of 28 May 2010 on the appointment of an EU Operation Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 142 of 10 June 2010
  )

On page 9, recital 2:

for:

| ‘(2) | The United Kingdom has proposed that Major-General Buster HOWE replace ...’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(2)

The United Kingdom has proposed that Major-General Buster HOWE replace ...’,

read:

| ‘(2) | The United Kingdom has proposed that Major-General Buster HOWES replace ...’; |
| --- | --- |

‘(2)

The United Kingdom has proposed that Major-General Buster HOWES replace ...’;

on page 9, Article 1:

for:

‘Major-General Buster HOWE is hereby appointed ...’,

read:

‘Major-General Buster HOWES is hereby appointed ...’.

---
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# CM/ECF Filing Tips

United States Court of Federal Claims General Filing Tips

Linking Filings in CM/ECF

Citation Formats

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Potential Spring High Flow 

Experiment (HFE) – Status of 

Resources and Experimental Plan

Technical Work Group Meeting

January 15, 2020

Scott VanderKooi

Southwest Biological Science Center

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center
Discharge

Paria River at Lees Ferry

(Dec 1, 2019 - Jan 10 2020)

Cumulative Sand Load

Paria River at Lees Ferry

(Dec 1, 2019 - Jan 10 2020)

USGS Preliminary Data, 2020. Do Not Cite. 

(https://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/station/GCDAMP/09382000# ) Jan. 15, 2020
Upper Marble Canyon

Lower Marble 

Canyon

USGS Preliminary Data, 2020. Do Not Cite. 

(https://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/reach/GCDAMP/09380000/09383050,

https://www.gcmrc.gov/discharge_qw_sediment/reach/GCDAMP/09383050/09383100) Jan. 15, 2020
Jan. 15, 2020

Plot courtesy Keri Stout, USBR

Preliminary Data, 2020. Do Not Cite.
Monitoring

 Resource monitoring as outlined in 

FY2018-20 Triennial Workplan

 Sediment transport and discharge

 Additional spring sediment monitoring trip

 Sandbars

 Native and nonnative fishes

 Aquatic foodbase

 Riparian vegetation

 Cultural resources

Jan. 15, 2020
Jan. 15, 2020
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Efren ROSALES-ROSALES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-30091.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007 *.

Filed April 18, 2007.

Josh Van De Wetering, USMI—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Cynthia K. Smith, Esq., Smith Law Offices, P.C., Missoula, MT, for Defendants Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Efren Rosales-Rosales appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 168-month sentence imposed for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) *&*846.

*726Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Rosales-Rosales’ counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Hall *v.*Hall.

*(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.*

September 7, 1889.)

Divorce—Summons—Service by Publication.

In an action for divorce, an order of publication will not be granted on the affidavit of plaintiff alone, without other proof of defendant’s non-residence.

At chambers. Action for divorce.

Van Brunt, P. J.

The application for order of reference must be denied. The service by publication is entirely insufficient. The order was granted upon the affidavit of the plaintiff alone, with no other proof of non-residence, or removal from the state. As the plaintiff would not be permitted to serve the summons personally, certainly an order of publication should not be granted solely upon his affidavits. Such a procedure would open the door to the grossest fraud. The papers are defective in other particulars, which, however, it is not necessary to notice.