alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# AGENCY:

 Federal Trade Commission.

# ACTION:

 Notice of intent to request public comments.

# SUMMARY:

 As part of its ongoing systematic review of all Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) rules and guides, the Commission gives notice that it intends to request public comments on the Guides for the Household Furniture Industry and the Telemarketing Sales Rule during 2000. The Commission will request comments on, among other things, the economic impact of, and the continuing need for, the rule and guides; possible conflict between the rule and guides and state, local, or other federal laws or regulations; and the effect on the rule and guides of any technological, economic, or other industry changes. No Commission determination on the need for or the substance of the rule or guides should be inferred from the intent to publish requests for comments.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Further details may be obtained from the contact person listed for each particular item.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Commission intends to initiate a review of and solicit public comments on the following during 2000:

(1) Guides for the Household Furniture Industry, 16 CFR part 250.

Agency Contact: Ingrid E. Whittaker-Ware, Federal Trade Commission, Southeast Region, Suite 5M35, Midrise Building, 60 Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 6561364.

(2) Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 CFR Part 310.

Agency Contact: Catherine C. Harrington-McBride, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Division of Marketing Practices, Room H238, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2452.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-993 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of the Treasury
 DATES: Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 2000 to be assured of consideration. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) *OMB Number:*
                     1545-0887. *Form Number:*
                     IRS Form 8281. *Type of Review:*
                     Extension. *Title:*
                     Information Return for Publicly Offered Original Issue Discount Instruments. *Description:*
                     Form 8281 is filed by the issuer of a publicly offered debt instrument having Original Issue Discount (OID). The information is used to update Publication 1212, “List of Original Issue Discount Instruments. *Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers:*
                     500. **Estimated Burden Hours per Respondent/Recordkeeper**
Recordkeeping
5 hr., 1 min.Learning about the law or the form
30 min.Preparing, copying, assembling, and sending the form to the IRS
37 min.
 *Frequency of Response:*
                     On occasion, Annually. *Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden:*
                     3,065 hours. *OMB Number:*
                     1545-1518. *Form Number:*
                     IRS Form 5498-MSA. *Type of Review:*
                     Extension. *Title:*
                     MSA or Medicate+Choice MSA Information. *Description:*
                     Form 5498-MSA is used to report contributions to a medical savings account as set forth in section 220(h). *Estimated Number of Respondents:*
                     16,442. *Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent:*
                     10 minutes. *Frequency of Response:*
                     Annually. *Estimated Total Reporting Burden:*
                     6,988 hours. *Clearance Officer:*
                     Garrick Shear, Internal Revenue Service, Room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224. *OMB Reviewer:*
                     Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Lois K. Holland, Departmental Reports Management Officer.


[FR Doc. 00-9872 Filed 4-19-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Patrick G. Blanchard, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Georgia-Carolina Bancshares, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8618 and 34-52492]c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;andd) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting 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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 13, 2007         /s/ Patrick G. Blanchard   Patrick G. Blanchard   President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                                0
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                                      10
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      10
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                             0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                              0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                                  0
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                     10
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                             0
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                            1,000
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                            1,000
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                            0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                               0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                              0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                             0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                             0
<NET-ASSETS>                                         0
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                                    0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                                    0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<EXPENSES-NET>                                       0
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              0
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                             0
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                            0
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                                0
<EQUALIZATION>                                       0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                            0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                             0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                                0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                              0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                          0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                                  0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                               0
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                            0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                           0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                                      0
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                                0
<PER-SHARE-NII>                                      0
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                              0
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                            0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                                  0
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                                      0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.2


SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION




CERTIFICATION


(pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)




In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 of Hydrogenics Corporation (the “Company”) as filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) on the date hereof (the “Report”) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Robert Motz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, that:




(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 results of operations of the Company.


By:
/s/ Robert MotzName:
Robert MotzTitle:
Chief Financial Officer


Date: March 8, 2013







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hydrogenics Corporation and will be retained by Hydrogenics Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
(31 Abb. N. C. 256.)

#### DELBERMAN v. NEW YORK & N. R. CO. et al.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.

April, 1894.)

Pleading—Amended and Supplemental Complaint.

Leave will not be granted to serve a proposed “amended and supplemental complaint,”. as a supplemental complaint and an amended complaint are distinct pleadings.

Action by one Emil Oelberman against the Hew York & northern Railroad Company and others. Plaintiff moved for leave to serve a paper called a proposed “amended and supplemental complaint,” and also to amend the summons.

For appeal from order denying injunction, see 29 H. Y. Supp. 545.

Denied.

Simon Sterne, for the motion.

Simpson, Thacher & Barnum and Frank Loomis, opposed.

INGRAHAM, J.

This is a motion made by the plaintiff to serve a paper annexed to the moving papers, which is called a proposed “amended and supplemental complaint;” also to amend the summons by making the Hew York & Putnam Railroad a party defendant. There is no such pleading known to the Code as an “amended and supplemental complaint.” The original complaint in this action having been demurred to, and the demurrer sustained (27 N. Y. Supp. 945), the plaintiff, in accordance with the leave granted by the interlocutory judgment, served an amended complaint, and that complaint now stands as the complaint in this action. If the plaintiff desires to serve a supplemental complaint under the provisions of section 544 of the Code, such a supplemental complaint must be prepared as distinct from the amended complaint as it now stands as the complaint in this action, as supplemental thereto, but there is no provision authorizing the court to allow *865allegations, Tby way of an amendment to the complaint, of facts that happened after the commencement of the action. It will produce great confusion to approve of such a practice as allowing the service of a pleading in which is contained the facts relied on to give a cause of action, and also contains the allegation of the facts^ which have arisen since the commencement of the action, and which are supplementary to those alleged in the complaint as effecting the ultimate relief to be given. I think, therefore, this motion should be denied, with $10 costs to abide the event, with leave, however, to the plaintiff to make a motion for leave to serve a supplemental complaint as a distinct pleading, which shall allege the facts that-he considers material which occurred after his former pleading, or of which he was ignorant when it was made. Order to be settled on notice.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ERNST &
YOUNG UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JULY 3, 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN IT ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                         929,288
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               29,210,951
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,033,000
<INVENTORY>                                 17,572,718
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            47,410,266
<PP&E>                                      52,124,125
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,206,847
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             193,651,017
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       39,612,679
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                (13,930,791)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               193,651,017
<SALES>                                    132,494,161
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           132,494,161
<CGS>                                       93,478,840
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               93,478,840
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,231,507
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           8,696,568
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,087,246
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,411,139
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,676,107
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,676,107
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
ALD-210 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 10-1592

 

FRANK CECIL CANNON,

Appellant

v.

MARY SABOL, Warden of York County Prison

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-1945)

District Judge: Honorable Malcolm Muir

 

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

May 26, 2010

Before: SLOVITER, AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed June 7, 2010 )

 

OPINION

 

PER CURIAM

Frank Cannon appeals the District Court’s order denying his petition for habeas

corpus. For the reasons below, we will affirm.
2

The procedural history of this case and the details of Cannon’s claims are well

known to the parties and need not be discussed at length. Briefly, Cannon filed a petition

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He argued that when he was

admitted into the county prison, an intake counselor wrote down that Cannon was a pagan

and not a Hebrew Israelite. He contended that he was not allowed to participate in

Hebrew activities, which denied his rights under the First Amendment. He requested that

the District Court grant the writ and enjoin respondents from violating his rights. The

District Court denied the petition without prejudice to Cannon presenting his claims in a

properly filed civil rights complaint. Cannon filed a timely notice of appeal, and we have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We agree with the District Court that Cannon’s claims concerning his participation

in religious activities at the prison do not lie at the “core of habeas” and, therefore, are not

cognizable in a § 2241 petition. See Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542-44 (3d Cir.

2002). None of his claims challenges the fact or length of his sentence or confinement. 

See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). 

Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the

appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by

the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit

I.O.P. 10.6.
#### In re BINGHAMTON GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Application of the directors of the Binghamton General Electric Company for a voluntary dissolution.

Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and MARTIN and MERWIN, JJ.

No opinion. Order modified by striking out that part which modifies the restraining clause in the order of March 1, 1894, without costs to either party,.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GEORGE OHANES ZAKARIAN,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 21-287

Agency No. A090-191-420

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 16, 2023**

Pasadena, California

Before: BRESS and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN, *** District 

Judge.

George Ohanes Zakarian, a native and citizen of Iraq, petitions for review 

of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration 

Judge (IJ) order denying his application for protection under the Convention 

* 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).

*** The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for 

the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAR 20 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-287

Against Torture (CAT). We review the agency’s decision for substantial 

evidence. Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1066 (9th Cir. 2021). “Under this 

standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels 

a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 

2019). Where the BIA “adopt[s] and affirm[s] the IJ’s decision without adding 

any commentary of its own, we treat the IJ’s decision as that of the BIA.” Sinha 

v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1019–20 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.1

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief. “A 

petitioner seeking CAT relief must show that it is more likely than not that he will 

be tortured upon removal, and that the torture will be inflicted at the instigation 

of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, the government.” Arteaga v. Mukasey, 

511 F.3d 940, 948 (9th Cir. 2007). The evidence in the record does not compel 

the conclusion that Zakarian more likely than not will be tortured with the consent 

or acquiescence of the Iraqi government if he is removed to Iraq. Zakarian did 

not present evidence that he or his family members had ever been harmed or 

tortured in Iraq. The IJ also found that some non-Muslims have lived in more 

hospitable areas of Iraq and that country reports show that Iraq has made efforts 

to protect religious minorities. In fact, the IJ found that the country report detailed 

1 Zakarian does not challenge the IJ’s determination that he is removable and not 

eligible for asylum, withholding, or cancellation of removal due to various 

criminal convictions. 
3 21-287

the Iraqi government’s ongoing efforts to battle ISIS and provide security to 

minority groups. 

Substantial evidence supports these findings. Zakarian has not 

demonstrated it is more likely than not that he “faces any particularized risk” of 

torture if he returns to Iraq. Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 751 (9th 

Cir. 2022).

PETITION DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,


CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Intermec, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 27, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick J. Byrne, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.





/s/  Patrick J. ByrnePatrick J. ByrneChief Executive OfficerOctober 29, 2009
##### 



EXHIBIT 13.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS REQUIRED BY
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Embraer Empresa Brasileira de
Aeronáutica S.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Antonio Luiz Pizarro Manso, Executive
Vice-President Corporate and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
that to the best of my 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 results of operations of the
Company. June 30, 2004
    By:
    
    /s/ Antonio Luiz Pizarro MansoName:
    
    Antonio Luiz Pizarro MansoTitle:
    
    Executive Vice-President Corporate and Chief Financial
Officer