alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20800-20801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9688]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-504]


Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic 
of China

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

ACTION: Extension of time limit.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 18, 2000.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the 
time limit for the preliminary results of the administrative review of 
the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the People's 
Republic of China. This review involves four respondents (Universal 
Candle Company, Ltd., Liaoning Native Product Import & Export 
Corporation, Tianjin Native Produce Import and Export Group 
Corporation, Ltd., and Rich Talent Trading, Ltd.) and covers the period 
August 1, 1998-July 31, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Odenyo at (202) 482-5254 or 
Robert James at (202) 482-0649, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Enforcement Group III, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because it is not practicable to complete 
this review within the time limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), the Department is 
extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results 
until Wednesday, August 30, 2000. See April 6, 2000 Memorandum from 
Richard O. Weible to Joseph A. Spetrini, on file in Room B-099 of the 
main Commerce building. The final

[[Page 20801]]

results of this administrative review will continue to be due no later 
than 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are 
published.
    This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Tariff Act, as amended.

    Dated: April 6, 2000.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III.
[FR Doc. 00-9688 Filed 4-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Patricia E. Richter, Respondent, v Theodore F. Richter, Appellant.

— In an action for the partition of real property, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated October 10, 1985, which granted the plaintiff wife’s motion for appointment of a Referee to ascertain the rights, shares and interests of the respective parties in the subject premises.

Ordered that the order is reversed, without costs or disbursements, the motion is denied with leave to renew upon a showing that the parties’ judgment of divorce has been modified to terminate the defendant’s right to exclusive occupancy of the former marital residence, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Special Term erred in appointing a Referee to ascertain the rights, shares and interest of the parties in the subject premises, which is the parties’ former marital residence. Pursuant to the terms of the parties’ judgment of divorce, the defendant was awarded exclusive occupancy of the marital residence for an indefinite period of time. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek partition of the premises since she is not, as is required by RPAPL 901 (1), "[a] person holding and in possession of real property as joint tenant or tenant in common” *(see, Luvera v Luvera,*119 AD2d 810; *Ripp v Ripp,*64 Misc 2d 323, *affd*38 AD2d 65, *affd*32 NY2d 755). In order to be entitled to partition and appointment of a Referee, the plaintiff must first seek modification of the parties’ judgment of divorce in order to terminate the defendant’s right to exclusive occupancy. On this point we note that the judgment of divorce must be construed as limiting the defendant’s right of exclusive possession for a reasonable time following the execution of the judgment *(see, Luvera v Luvera, supra).*On the basis of this record, we are unable to determine whether a reasonable time has expired. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Brown and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-51146

Summary Calendar

 

BLANCA OCHOA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-01-CV-993

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

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Blanca S. Ochoa has appealed the magistrate judge’s judgment

affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

denying her application for Supplemental Security Income. In

reviewing the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits, this

court determines whether the decision is supported by substantial

evidence and whether proper legal standards were applied in

evaluating the evidence. Brown v. Apfel, 192 F.3d 492, 496 (5th

Cir. 1999). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a
No. 02-51146

-2-

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Ochoa contends that the ALJ failed to obtain and consider

records from one of her treating physicians. Because Ochoa was

not prejudiced, there was no reversible error. See Kane v.

Heckler, 731 F.2d 1216, 1220 (5th Cir. 1984).

Ochoa contends that the ALJ erred in giving more weight to

the opinion of Dr. Robert L. Jones than to that of another

consulting physician, Dr. Salvador P. Baylan. Under the

substantial-evidence standard, this court “will not re-weigh the

evidence, try the questions de novo, or substitute [its] judgment

for the Commissioner’s, even if . . . the evidence weighs against

the Commissioner’s decision.” Masterson v. Barnhart, 309 F.3d

267, 272 (5th Cir. 2002). “In short, conflicts in the evidence

are for the Commissioner and not the courts to resolve.” Id.

(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). It was not

unreasonable for the ALJ to give more weight to Dr. Jones’s

opinion. See Brown, 192 F.3d at 496; see also Moore v. Sullivan,

919 F.2d 901, 904 (5th Cir. 1990). 

Ochoa contends that the Commissioner’s decision is not

supported by substantial evidence. Ochoa argues only that the

decision was based on Dr. Jones’s opinion, which she contends is

at odds with Dr. Baylan’s opinion and the opinions of her

treating physicians. Again, Ochoa’s argument demonstrates only

that there was a conflict in the evidence. Such a conflict is
No. 02-51146

-3-

not sufficient for reversal under the substantial-evidence

standard. See Brown, 192 F.3d at 496. The Commissioner’s

decision is 

AFFIRMED.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5896 

To authorize an additional district judgeship for the district of Idaho. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 28, 2010 

Mr. MINNICK (for himself and Mr. SIMPSON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To authorize an additional district judgeship for the district 

of Idaho. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DISTRICT JUDGESHIP FOR THE DISTRICT OF 

4 IDAHO. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint, by 

6 and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 1 addi7 tional district judge for the district of Idaho. 

8 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

9 In order that the table contained in section 133(a) of title 

10 28, United States Code, will reflect the change in the num11 ber of judgeships authorized by subsection (a), such table 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5896 IH

1 is amended by striking the item relating to Idaho and in2 serting the following: 

‘‘Idaho ................................................................................................ 3’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


      We have issued our report dated March 15, 2005, except for notes 2 (b), 2
(e), 7, and 12 dated October 18, 2005, accompanying the financial statements
included in the amended Annual Report of Trycera Financial, Inc. on Form
10-KSB/A-4 for the year ended December 31, 2004. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statement of
Trycera Financial, Inc. on Form S-2 (File No. 333-121651).

/s/ Chisholm, Bierwolf & Nilson, LLC

CHISHOLM, BIERWOLF & NILSON, LLC

Bountiful, Utah
December 12, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5872 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5872

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To provide adequate commitment authority for fiscal year 2010 for 
 guaranteed loans that are obligations of the General and Special Risk 
  Insurance Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``General and Special Risk Insurance 
Funds Availability Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. ADEQUATE COMMITMENT AUTHORITY.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for fiscal year 2010 
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may enter into 
commitments to guarantee loans, as authorized by sections 238 and 519 
of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-3 and 1735c), in an amount 
not exceeding $20,000,000,000 in total loan principal, any part of 
which is to be guaranteed.

SEC. 3. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that 
such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 28, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5872

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To provide adequate commitment authority for fiscal year 2010 for 
 guaranteed loans that are obligations of the General and Special Risk 
  Insurance Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 20943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9736]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Oregon Coast Provincial Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Oregon Coast Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) will meet 
on May 25, 2000, at the Siuslaw National Forest, 4077 S.W. Research 
Way, Corvallis, Oregon. This is a change from the date of April 27, 
2000, originally announced in the Federal Register, April 3, 2000 (Vol. 
65, Number 64, page 17483). As stated in the original notice, the 
meeting time is 9:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. and all agenda items remain 
the same.
    Interested citizens are encouraged to attend. The committee 
welcomes the public's written comments on committee business at any 
time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joni Quarnstrom, Public Affairs 
Specialist, Siuslaw National Forest, 541-750-7075, or write to the 
Forest Supervisor, Siuslaw National Forest, P.O. Box 1148, Corvallis, 
Oregon 97339.

    Dated: April 13, 2000.
Jose L. Linares,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 00-9736 Filed 4-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
د افغانانو لپاره د مهاجرت حقوقي خدمات (ILSAA(

مونږ د هغه نوي راغلي افغان کډوالو سره چې پر شرایطو برابر وي و ړی ا مرسته کوو تر څو هغوی هغه خدماتو ته السرسی ومومي 

چي د متحده ایاالتود مهاجرینو په قانون ي سیستم کي خپل ې ستونز ي ته الره پیدا کړي. 

افغان کډوال چې د شرایطو واجد دي :

• د بشري موقتې اقامې غوښتونکی افغانان 

• بې سرپرسته افغان ماشومان 

• نور هغه افغانان چې د کډوالو د بیا میشتېدو د ۲۲-۰۱د تګالر ې 

»22-01 Letter Policy ORR »له مخې د شرایطو واجد وي، 

لکه د ځانګړي مهاجرت ویزې لرونکي، ځانګړي کډوال چې د 

مشروطهدایمي استوګنې حیثیت لري، پناه غوښتونکي، اوداسې

نور.

هغه افغان چې د موقتي اقامې »پرول« غوښتونکی وي، دا به ورته ډیر ستونزمنه وي چې د کافي قانونې مالتړ څخه پرته د متحده ایاالتو د 

مهاجرینو قانوني سیستم سره مخامخ شي. پدې برخه کې مونږ مرسته کوالی شو.

حقوقي خدماتو ته السرسی

• موږ د هغه افغان کډوالو لپاره چې د شرایطو مطابق وي د 

مهاجرت قانوني مرستې په و ړیا ت وګه وړاندې کو و. 

• موږ د دایمي اقامې الرښود په هکله، د کورنیود بیا یوځای 

کیدو، د موقتي محافظتوضعیت (TPS (او داسې نو رې

ورته مرستې وړاندې کوو. 

• موږ لفظي او ک تبي ژباړنیز خدمات چې پښتو او دری ژبې هم

• کله چې موږ د قانوني مرستې لپاره ستاسو درخواست

ترالسه کړی، موږ به تاسو ستاسو د اړتیاو اړوند د قانوني 

خدماتو د کارپوه سره معرفی کړ و. 

• ز ه مونږ ویب سایټ website وګوري ترسو نورو معلومات 

 او منابعو ت ه الس رسيء پیداکړي .

 .

د افغان کډوالو د ښه چوپړ لپاره د ظرفیتونو )کدرونو ( روزل 

موږ په ټوله متحده ایاالتو کې د قانوني خدماتو د پاره ظرفیتونهروزو، 

سرچینې او دوامداره مالتړ هم چمتو کوو، تر څو دوی وکوالی شي په ښه 

توګه افغان کډوالو ته اړین خدمات وړاندې کړي. 

 پکښي شاملې دي تاسو ته وړاندې کوو. 

تاسو کوالی شئ چي د »com.icf@ILSAAinfo »بریښنالیک د الري خپ ل

 نوم، د تلیفون شمېره، او خپله لومړنۍ ژبه د »ILSAA »د ټیم غړي ت ه

 واستوئ او هغه به ستاسو پیغام ته جواب وواي ي. تاسو هم کوالی شی زمونږ 

https://ilsaa.acf.hhs.gov/ لیدنه څخه سایټ ویب
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES ) No. ACM 40001

Appellee )

)

v. )

) ORDER

Titus L. JONES )

Master Sergeant (E-7) )

U.S. Air Force )

Appellant ) Panel 2

On 24 February 2022, Appellant submitted a Motion to Withdraw from Appellate Review and Attach. Specifically, Appellant moved to attach DD Form 

2330, Waiver/Withdrawal of Appellate Rights in General and Special CourtsMartial Subject to Review by a Court of Criminal Appeals, signed by Appellant 

and Appellant’s counsel on 23 February 2022. On 24 February 2022, the Government submitted its response not opposing Appellant’s motion.

Accordingly, it is by the court on this 24th day of February, 2022,

ORDERED:

Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw from Appellate Review and Attach is

GRANTED. Appellant’s case is forwarded to the Appellate Records Branch, 

AFLOA/JAJM, for further processing in accordance with Rules for Courts-Martial 1115(f)(3) and 1201, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.).

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee v. James Marcus LEBLANC; Howard Ronald Guillory, Sr., Defendants—Appellants.

No. 10-30057

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 8, 2011.

Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Brett L. Grayson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, Todd S. Clemons, Todd Clemons & Associates, Lake Charles, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

George Frazier, New Orleans, LA for Defendants-Appellants.

Jonathan Jermaine Guillory, Beaumont, TX, pro se.

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

*290PER CURIAM: *

James Marcus LeBlanc and Howard Ronald Guillory, Sr., appeal their mandatory minimum sentences, imposed pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A),(B), for their cocaine-distribution and conspiracy convictions. They contend: their sentences must be vacated; and they must be resentenced under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010(FSA), Pub.L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, enacted during the pendency of these appeals.

Because appellants raise issues based upon legislation enacted post-sentencing, our review is *de novo. See United States v. Salazar,*542 F.3d 139, 144 (5th Cir.2008) (interpretation of sentencing statute reviewed *de*novo); *see also United States v. Warden,*291 F.3d 363, 365 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2002) (plain-error review inapplicable where defendant had no opportunity to object).

FSA, signed into law on 3 August 2010, reset the amount of crack cocaine required to trigger mandatory-minimum sentences. After appellants filed their briefs on appeal, our court decided *United States v. Doggins,*633 F.3d 379, 384 (5th Cir.2011), which held: FSA does *not*apply retroactively; and, because FSA does *not*impose a procedural or remedial change, it does not fall within an exception to the savings statute, 1 U.S.C. § 109 (repeal of penal statute does not have retroactive effect unless repealing statute expressly so provides).

*Doggins*forecloses most of appellants’ contentions; to the extent it does not, the remaining contentions are without merit. Congress directed the Sentencing Commission to promulgate guidelines, policy statements, or amendments provided for in FSA “as soon as practicable”, but it did not direct that any retroactive effect be given. *See*Pub.L. No. 111-220 § 8. Additionally, insofar as appellants contend FSA must apply immediately to correct a claimed equal-protection violation caused by the statute under which they were sentenced, our court has never recognized such a violation stemming from the sentencing disparity of the prior law. See, *e.g., United States v. Fisher,*22 F.3d 574, 579 & n. 21 (5th Cir.1994) (noting cocaine-base sentencing disparity not unconstitutional).

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.
Exhibit
10.11

      


      Money4Gold
Holdings, Inc.

      595
S. Federal Highway, Suite 600

      Boca
Raton, Florida 33432

      


      December
1, 2009

      


      Mr. Hakan
Koyuncu

      595 S.
Federal Highway

      Suite
600

      Boca
Raton, Florida 33432

      


      Re:       
Salary Amendment

      


      Dear Mr.
Koyuncu:

      


      This letter agreement amends your
current employment agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) with Money4Gold
Holdings, Inc. by increasing your annual salary to $275,000, effective December
1, 2009, and to $300,000, effective June 1, 2010.

      


      All other
terms and conditions of your Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.  Please sign below acknowledging your acceptance to the
amended salary terms above.

      


      
        
          	
                  Sincerely
      yours,

                
	 
      
	
                  /s/
      Douglas Feirstein

                
	
                  Douglas
      Feirstein

                
	
                  Chief
      Executive Officer

                


        

      

      


      I agree
to the above terms:

      


      
        
          
            	
                    /s/
      Hakan Koyuncu

                  
	
                    Hakan
      Koyuncu
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derrick Daly, Also Known as Everton Daly, Appellant.

Appeal from judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Galligan, J.), rendered on May 7, 1985, to be recalendared before a new panel of this court when perfected and assigned counsel relieved and new counsel assigned, all as indicated. A motion by defendant-appellant for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief is denied. No opinion. Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Carro, Milonas and Smith, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 13 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 Enviro Voraxial Technology,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Alberto DiBella, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 13 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: October 1, 2008



/s/ Alberto DiBella
-------------------
Alberto DiBella
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer