alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10281]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
clearance the following proposal for collection of information under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-
13.
    Bureau: International Trade Administration.
    Title: Application for the President's ``E'' and ``E Star'' Awards 
for Export Expansion.
    Agency Form Number: ITA-725P.
    OMB Number: 0625-0065.
    Type of Request: Regular Submission.
    Estimated Burden: 1,644 hours.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 60.
    Est. Avg. Hours Per Response: 27.4 hours.
    Needs and Uses: The President's ``E'' Award for Excellence in 
Exporting is our nation's highest award to honor American exporters. 
``E'' Awards recognize firms and organizations for their competitive 
achievements in world markets, as well as the benefits of their success 
to the U.S. economy. The President's ``E Star'' Award recognizes the 
sustained superior international marketing performance of ``E'' Award 
winners.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit 
institutions; Individuals or households; Farms; and State, local, or 
tribal governments.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-7340.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Paperwork 
Clearance Officer, (202) 482-3129, Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 
14th and Constitution, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 
10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 within 30 
days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Dated: April 20, 2001.
Madeleine Clayton,
Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief 
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-10281 Filed 4-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-U
Exhibit 14.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To
the Board of Directors of Prudential plc:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-199148) on Form F-3 and the
registration statement (No. 333-192810) on Form S-8 of Prudential plc of our report dated 7 April 2016, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial position as at 31 December 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated
statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in equity and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended 31 December 2015 and the related financial statement schedule as at 31 December 2015 and 2014, and for each of
the years in the three-year period ended 31 December 2015, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as at 31 December 2015, which report appears in the 31 December 2015 annual report on Form 20-F of
Prudential plc.

Our report notes that Prudential plc adopted FRS 101 in 2015 for the purposes of presenting its financial statement schedule.



|             |  |  |  |                
|------------ |  |  |  | ---------------
|             |  | 
|7 April 2016 |  |  |  | /s/ KPMG LLP   
|             |  |  |  | KPMG LLP       
|             |  |  |  | London, England
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2004 (the Report), I, Craig A. Knock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



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



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



|                    |  |                                                                                                                                         
|------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 9, 2006 |  | /s/    CRAIG A.
KNOCK                                                                                                                   
|                    |  | Craig A. Knock Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Principal Accounting Officer Iowa
Telecommunications Services, Inc.
#### Jose Antonio Perez HIGUERA; Edelmira Orozco Ochoa, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-71209.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 2011.*

Filed April 14, 2011.

Ramin Ghashghaei, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

Rachel Louise Browning, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Antonio Perez Higuera and Edelmira Orozco Ochoa, natives and citizens of *688Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their motion to reopen, after an in absentia determination of removal. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen on the grounds that their mistaken understanding that their hearing was on a different date did not constitute exceptional circumstances within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l), and denial of the motion did not lead to an unconscionable result. *See Valencia-Fragoso v. INS,*321 F.3d 1204, 1205-06 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam).

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 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

 I, David Calkins, CEO and President, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pacel Corporation;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  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 quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  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 quarterly report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;
     b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls and
procedures  as of a date  within  90  days  prior  to the  filing  date  of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.  presented  in  this  quarterly   report  our   conclusions   about  the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   Board  of  Directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

     a. all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or  operation  of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
     b. any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves  management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

November 12, 2003

BY: /s/David Calkins
   ----------------------
David Calkins, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent thereof)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Bethea, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), both rendered October 21, 1986, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under *837indictment No. 2099/84, and bail jumping in the first degree under indictment No. 258/85, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are modified, on the law, by reducing the mandatory surcharges imposed on each conviction from $100 to $75; as so modified, the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the mandatory surcharges imposed represented an abuse of discretion in light of his alleged indigency is premature *(see, People v Martin,*132 AD2d 626; *People v Peralta,*127 AD2d 803, *lv denied*69 NY2d 953; *People v Perrine,*111 AD2d 193). Moreover, the court properly imposed a surcharge with respect to each judgment of conviction *(see,*Penal Law § 60.35 [1]; *People v Baynes,*121 AD2d 643, *lv denied*68 NY2d 767; *People v Cusick,*119 AD2d 830, *lv denied*68 NY2d 667). We find, however, that the court erred in imposing surcharges in the amount of $100 each, since Penal Law § 60.35 required a mandatory surcharge of $75 at the time the criminal acts underlying the instant convictions were committed *(see,*L 1985, ch 59; *cf., People v Valdelamar,*122 AD2d 289, *lv denied*68 NY2d 918; *People v Clarke,*111 AD2d 11). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6020 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code with respect to the sale 

by the trustee of property that is subject to a lease. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2010 

Mr. CLAY (for himself, Mr. RANGEL, and Ms. LEE of California) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code with respect 

to the sale by the trustee of property that is subject 

to a lease. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tenant Rights Res5 toration Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

7 Section 363 of title 11, the United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(r) Notwithstanding subsection (f), the trustee may 

10 not sell real estate that is the property of the estate free 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6020 IH

1 and clear of an existing leasehold interest unless the lessee 

2 is permitted to elect 1 of the following 2 options upon the 

3 entry of the order authorizing such a sale: 

4 ‘‘(1) The lessee may treat such lease as termi5 nated by the sale. 

6 ‘‘(2) The lessee may retain its rights under 

7 such lease (including rights such as those relating to 

8 the amount and timing of payment of rent and other 

9 amounts payable by the lessee and any right of use, 

10 possession, quiet enjoyment, subletting, assignment, 

11 or hypothecation) that are in or appurtenant to the 

12 real property for the balance of the term of such 

13 lease and for any renewal or extension of such rights 

14 to the extent that such rights are enforceable under 

15 applicable nonbankruptcy law.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 12 - 00352 - CR

JOE NATHAN HAYWOOD, JR. A/K/A JOE HAYWOOD APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------ FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

------------ Appellant Joe Nathan Haywood, Jr. a/k/a Joe Haywood pleaded guilty to and was convicted of aggravated assault against a public servant , a first

- degree felony. Haywood ’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

professio nal evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Haywood had the opportunity to file a pro se brief but did not do so; the State has not filed a brief. Once an appellant’s co urt

- appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 922

– 23 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).
We hav e carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief

. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. /s/ Bob McCoy BOB MCCOY JUSTICE
PANEL: WALKER , MCCOY , and MEIER, J J

. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: January 30, 2014
**Exhibit 99.5**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATIONI, Daryl Wilson, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Hydrogenics Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed underour supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding thereliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered bythe annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of thecompany’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: March 7, 2008            /s/ Daryl Wilson         Daryl Wilson    President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re Transfer of Attorney to Administrative 

Suspension Status Pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 

219(l) 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 4 IDE 

Nos. C3-17-599, C3-18-490, C3-18-130

Attorney Registration No. 49104

(York County)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of August, 2019, the Disciplinary Board having certified his 

name to the Court for failure to pay expenses taxed under Pa.R.D.E. 208(g)(3), Clarence 

E. Allen is transferred to administrative suspension status. See Pa.R.D.E. 219(l). He 

shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.
Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





To the Board of Directors of


China Natural Gas, Inc.





We consent to the use of our report dated March 10, 2010, except for the effects on the consolidated financial statements of the restatement described in Note 2 and 15, as to which the date is September 30, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of China Natural Gas, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income and other comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, which report appear in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of China Natural Gas, Inc.  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-3/A (No. 333-160150), and Form S-8 (No. 333-166422) of the report described in the previous
sentence appearing in the annual report on Form 10-K of China Natural Gas, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.





/s/ Frazer Frost, LLP





Brea, California


March 14, 2011





135 South State College Boulevard, Suite 300 | Brea, California 92821 | 714.990.1040 | frazerfrost.com


Los Angeles and Visalia, CA


FRAZER FROST, LLP is an independent firm associated with Moore Stephens International Limited.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1441

CATHY G. LANIER; RANDY D. LANIER,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY; BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC; 

FLEMING & WHITT PA; MCDONNELL & ASSOCIATES PA; DOES 1-10, 

inclusive,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Chief 

District Judge. (3:12-cv-00628-MBS-SVH)

Submitted: July 10, 2012 Decided: July 24, 2012

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Cathy G. Lanier, Randy D. Lanier, Appellants Pro Se. Steven 

Barry Licata, Columbia, South Carolina; David Randolph Whitt, 

FLEMING & WHITT, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cathy G. Lanier and Randy D. Lanier appeal the 

district court’s order denying the motion for a temporary 

restraining order that they filed in connection with their 

action against the Appellees.

To the extent that the Laniers seek to appeal the 

district court’s denial of a temporary restraining order, the 

denial is not appealable on the circumstances of this case. See

Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (4th Cir. 

1976). To the extent that the Laniers also sought a preliminary 

injunction, we have reviewed the record and conclude that the 

district court’s denial of any such request was not an abuse of 

its discretion. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 

U.S. 7, 22 (2008); Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 

287, 290 (4th Cir. 2011).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as to the request 

for a temporary restraining order, and otherwise affirm the 

district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART