alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements for Charter Municipal Mortgage Acceptance Company and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           9,282,108
<SECURITIES>                                   600,758,941
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,952,299
<ALLOWANCES>                                       138,000
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   302,999
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 635,954,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,244,557
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                     326,710,313
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   635,954,870
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,231,013
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,068,949
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 932,236
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,229,828
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,229,828
<EPS-BASIC>                                          .81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .81



</TABLE>
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 Millennium Quest, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Dimitri Cocorinis and Terry Cononelos, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:

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

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



Date: April 21, 2006              /s/ Dimitri Cocorinis
                                  Dimitri Cocorinis, Chief Executive Officer


Date: April 21, 2006              /s/ Terry Cononelos
                                  Terry Cononelos, Chief Financial Officer
1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

Complainant 

vs. 

MICHAEL JOSEPH BOGATTO 

Respondent 

_________________________________ 

Docket Number 2023-0370 

CG Enforcement Activity Number 7798994 

CONSENT ORDER 

Issued: November 7, 2023 

By: Honorable George J. Jordan, Administrative Law Judge 

Appearances: 

LT Carolina Helmke 

Sector Honolulu 

For the Coast Guard 

Michael Joseph Bogatto, Pro se

For the Respondent 
2 

CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

 On October 30, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of 

Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to be approved as a settlement of the case 

under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502. 

 I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and 

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 20.502. 

ORDER 

 Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, the Settlement Agreement is 

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute 

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding. 

SO ORDERED. 

Done and dated November 7, 2023, 

Seattle, Washington 

_______________________________ 

George J. Jordan

Administrative Law Judge 

United States Coast Guard
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID T. PHILLIPS; JANE T. PHILLIPS,

Petitioners

- Appellants,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 20

- 70051

Tax Ct. No. 7854

- 18L

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted March 16, 2021 * *

Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.

David T. Phillips and Jane T. Phillips appeal the decision of the Tax Court

holding that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue did not abuse its discretion by

rejecting their offer in compromise related to their 2012 and 2014 tax liabilities.

We have juri sdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo questions

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

MAR 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 70051

of law, and for an abuse of discretion the Commissioner’s rejection of an offer in

compromise. Keller v. Comm’r , 568 F.3d 710, 716 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly g ranted summary judgment because taxpayers failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Commissioner’s

rejection of their settlement offer was an abuse of discretion. See id. at 717

- 18

( computational errors by the Commissioner in re jecting t axpayers’ offer in

compromise were not prejudicial and thus were not an abuse of discretion) ; Fargo

v. Comm’r , 447 F.3d 706, 709

- 10 (9th Cir. 2006) (the IRS has discretion to decide

whether to reject an offer in compromise after evaluating all fac ts and

circumstances).

We reject taxpayers’ contentions that the Commissioner abused its discretion

by failing to comply with internal policies.

We do not consider taxpayers’ arguments or allegations raised for the first

time on appeal because taxpayers have failed to demonstrate exceptional

circumstances. See Sparkman v. Comm’r , 509 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th Cir. 2007)

(“Absent exceptional circumstanc es, this court will not consider an argument that

was not first raised in the Tax Court.”).

AFFIRMED.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5723 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

100 Broadway in Lynbrook, New York, as the ‘‘Navy Corpsman Jeffrey 

L. Wiener Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 2010 

Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 100 Broadway in Lynbrook, New York, as 

the ‘‘Navy Corpsman Jeffrey L. Wiener Post Office 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NAVY CORPSMAN JEFFREY L. WIENER POST 

4 OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 100 Broadway in Lynbrook, New 

7 York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Navy Corps8 man Jeffrey L. Wiener Post Office Building’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5723 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Navy Corpsman Jef5 frey L. Wiener Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### John K. C. Hyslip, Appellant, v Robert Sloan, as Mayor of the Village of Alfred, et al., Respondents.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals the dismissal of his CPLR article 78 petition, in which he sought to overturn the decision of the Village of Alfred Zoning Board of Appeals which had upheld the denial of a building permit to construct a pizzeria, apartment and health spa in the village on the ground that petitioner did not meet the parking requirements of the zoning ordinance.

We must apply Local Laws, 1985, No. 1, since it is the law existing at the time of this decision *(Matter of Boardwalk & Seashore Corp. v Murdock,*286 NY 494, 498-499; *Park of Edgewater v Joy,*50 NY2d 946, 948, *rearg denied*51 NY2d 770; *Matter of Alscot Investing Corp. v Incorporated Vil. of Rockville Centre,*64 NY2d 921, 922). That ordinance requires parking adjacent to the proposed commercial use to be within 300 feet of the commercial use, measured along public thoroughfares. Petitioner failed to meet that requirement, as his parking was within 300 feet only if measured over privately *1061owned property which he had no right to use. His permit therefore was properly denied. Nor has petitioner met the "special facts” exception, which requires a showing that officials acted in bad faith by delaying or denying his application while they changed the law. Further, no showing was made that under the law in effect at the time of the original application, petitioner would have been entitled to a permit *(see, Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf,*40 NY2d 769, 772-773, *rearg denied*42 NY2d 824). The zoning ordinance then in effect provided that parking must be within 300 feet but was silent with respect to how the distance should be measured. We agree with the trial court that it was reasonable to construe that ordinance as requiring measurement along public thoroughfares.

We have examined petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Allegany County, Sprague, J. — art 78.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
## Antes De Visitarnos

Verifique el estatus de nuestras oficinas, información acerca de COVID-19 y la dirección de la oficina antes de visitar una de nuestras oficinas.
                            - Estatus de Nuestras Oficinas
                            - Encuentre una Oficina de USCIS 

## Antes De Visitarnos

## Presentar Solicitud En Línea

Presentar un formulario en línea es más fácil y rápido que presentarlo en papel. Esto le permite una manera simple y personalizada de verificar su caso en línea. Usted también puede acceder a otros servicios de USCIS. Vea nuestro video sobre presentación en línea (en inglés).

El primer paso es crear una cuenta.   

## Maneje Su Caso

Utilice nuestras herramientas y otros recursos en línea para manejar su caso: 
                        - Verificar el Estatus de su Caso
                        - Verificar los Tiempos de Procesamiento
                        - Cambiar su Dirección en Línea

## Noticias y Alertas

            Abr          10

USCIS Adopta la Definición de “Ciencia o Arte” del Departamento del TrabajoAlertas

            Abr          09

USCIS Anuncia Información Relacionada con las Auditorías de Centros Regionales EB-5Alertas

            Abr          04

USCIS Anuncia Nuevas Guías sobre el Periodo de Validez del Formulario I-693Alertas

            Abr          04

USCIS Aumenta la Extensión Automática de Ciertos Documentos de Autorización de Empleo para Mejorar el Acceso a los Permisos de TrabajoComunicados de Prensa

            Abr          02

Interrupciones de las Herramientas en LíneaAlertas

Vea más noticias

## Eventos

Apr 23

Seminario de Capacitación | San Antonio, TX

Apr 25

Seminario de Capacitación | Brownsville, TX

May 14

Seminario de Capacitación | Durham, NC

Jun 27

Seminario de Capacitación | Philadelphia, PA

Jul 10

Seminario de Capacitación | Buffalo, NY

Vea más: Enlaces Nacionales | Enlaces Locales

## Investigación

                        - Datos de Inmigración y Ciudadanía
                        - Sala de Lectura Electrónica
                        - Ley de Libertad de Información (FOIA)
                        - Leyes y Políticas

## Verificación de Empleo

                        - E-Verify – Verifique la autorización de empleo de una persona
                        - Central I-9 para Empleadores
                        - myE-Verify
                        - SAVE

## Redes Sociales

> 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

0 / 2000Para proteger su privacidad, por favor no incluya ninguna información personal en sus comentarios. Revise nuestra Política de Privacidad.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Xiangqian Li, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of China BAK Battery, Inc. for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2005;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a materialfact 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 allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer 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, ismade 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 small business issuer’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 bythis report based on such evaluation; and 

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the smallbusiness issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a. All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting that are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and 

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in thesmall business issuer’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

Date: August 22, 2006
#### Michael J. Vendette et al., Appellants, v Michael S. Feinberg, Respondent.

— Order unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Special Term erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant doctor in this medical malpractice action. Although defendant, by expert opinion evidence, sought to establish his entitlement to summary judgment *(cf. Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center,*64 NY2d 851), plaintiff sufficiently opposed the motion by alleging defendant admitted to him that defendant misread an X ray revealing that the bones in plaintiff’s wrist had not fully healed. Such an admission of a party constitutes evidence in admissible form necessary to defeat a motion for summary judgment *(see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557; Richardson, Evidence § 209 [Prince 10th edj; *see also, Dietz v Aronson, 244*App Div 746). Although defendant denied making the admission, this creates a triable issue of fact precluding summary judgment. Cases upon which defendant relies *(e.g., Maust v Arseneau,*116 AD2d 1012; *Neuman v Greenstein,*99 AD2d 1018; *Pan v Coburn,*95 AD2d 670; *Himber v Pfizer Labs.,*82 AD2d 776, 777) did not involve an alleged admission by the defendant doctor and are they not controlling of the facts presented here. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Kubiniec, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
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 Westell Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on their 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 result of operations of the Company
     as of and for the periods covered in the Report.


/s/ E. Van Cullens
-----------------------------
E. Van Cullens
Chief Executive Officer
February 12, 2004


/s/ Nicholas C. Hindman, Sr.
-----------------------------
Nicholas C. Hindman, Sr.
Chief Financial Officer
February 12, 2004
# C_2021372EN.01000901.xml

| 16.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/9

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2021/C 372/08)

1.

As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

2.   Procedure

Procedure

Union producers may submit a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit G-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

| 4. | This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.









  Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Certain concrete reinforcement bars and rods | The Republic of Belarus | Anti-dumping duty | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1019 of 16 June 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain concrete reinforcement bars and rods originating in the Republic of Belarus
  (OJ L 155, 17.6.2017, p. 6) | 18.6.2022 |

4.

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

3

Certain concrete reinforcement bars and rods

The Republic of Belarus

Anti-dumping duty

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1019 of 16 June 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain concrete reinforcement bars and rods originating in the Republic of Belarus

(OJ L 155, 17.6.2017, p. 6)

18.6.2022

---

(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

1

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

2

(3)  The measure expires at midnight (00:00) of the day mentioned in this column.

3

---
# Form I-910, Application for Civil Surgeon Designation and Centralization

#### Archived Content

The information on this page is out of date. However, some of the content may still be useful, so we have archived the page.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invited you to participate in a stakeholder teleconference on Wednesday, February 5, 2014 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. (Eastern) to discuss Form I-910, Application for Civil Surgeon Designation and the new centralized application process.

On January 28, 2014, USCIS announced a new centralized process to receive and adjudicate civil surgeon designations at the National Benefits Center. This change requires physicians seeking a new civil surgeon designation to file a formal application at a USCIS Lockbox. The new process will not affect current civil surgeons.

Once the centralized process goes into effect, physicians seeking a new civil surgeon designation will need to complete Form I-910, Application for Civil Surgeon Designation and pay an application fee. Previously, civil surgeon designation has been a local process at the district or field office with jurisdiction over the prospective civil surgeon’s office location. This new process implements changes from the agency’s 2010 Fee Rule and is detailed in Volume 8 of the USCIS Policy Manual. The new process also replaces the civil surgeon designation guidance found in Chapter 83.4 of the Adjudicator’s Field Manual.

During the teleconference, USCIS officials provided an overview of the new Form I-910 and the centralization process and were available to answer your questions.For more information on civil surgeons, please visit www.uscis.gov/civilsurgeons.

Meeting Invite  (PDF, 144.42 KB)

02/10/2014

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.