alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009266EN.01002001.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/20

---

Corrigendum to Commission notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating in India

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 240 of 7 October 2009
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 240 of 7 October 2009

2009/C 266/12

On page 6, in point 1, Request for review:

for:

‘The request was lodged on 4 May 2009 by Eurocord (“the applicant”) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 % of the total Community production of synthetic fibre ropes.’

read:

‘The request was lodged on 4 May 2009 by the Liaison Committee of EU Twine, Cordage and Netting Industries of Eurocord (“the applicant”) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 % of the total Community production of synthetic fibre ropes’.

---
Case 1:07-cv-01699-AKH Document 17 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-01699-AKH Document 17 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-01699-AKH Document 17 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-01699-AKH Document 17 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-01699-AKH Document 17 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 5 of 5
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 23692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11661]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Docket No. GT01-21-000


Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

May 3, 2001.

    Take notice that on April 30, 2001, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 
Company (Panhandle) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
First Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet to be 
effective June 1, 2001:

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 3B

    Panhandle states that the purpose of this filing, made in 
accordance with the provisions of Section 154.106 of the Commission's 
Regulations, is to service the system map to reflect changes in the 
pipeline facilities and the points at which service is provided.
    Panhandle states that copies of this filing are being served on all 
affected customers and applicable state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via 
the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)((iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/foorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-11661 Filed 5-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 1 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 2 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 3 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 4 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 5 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 6 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 7 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 8 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 9 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 10 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 11 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 12 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 13 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 14 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 15 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 16 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 17 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 18 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 19 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 20 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 7-6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 21 of 21
#### Harke Revind Alwin Ar PIOH, aka Harke Revind Alwin Ar Pioh, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-74903.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted: March 8, 2013.

Filed: May 31, 2013.

Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.

Jennifer R. Khouri, Oil, Shelley Goad, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before WARDLAW and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and WOLF, Senior District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Mark L. Wolf, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Harke Revind Alwin Ar Pioh, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) determination that he is ineligible for withholding of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

Pioh does not appeal the BIA’s determination that he failed to file his asylum application in a timely fashion and that he does not fall within any of the exceptions for time-barred applications. He has therefore waived any challenge to the BIA’s determination that he is ineligible for asylum. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir.1996).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Pioh was ineligible for withholding of removal. *Al-Harbi v. INS,*242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir.2001). Pioh testified that he fears persecution both on the basis of his involvement with the Front Kedaulatan Malaku (“FKM”) and his Christian religion. Pioh must establish his eligibility for removal “by adducing credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record of facts” that “compels” the conclu*597sion that withholding of removal is proper. *Molina-Estrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002). As addressed in the supplemental briefing on this point, while it is true that credible testimony may be sufficient to establish that an alien is eligible for withholding of removal in some cases, *see*8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b); *see also Molina-Estrada,*293 F.3d at 1094, the evidence submitted by Pioh, including his credible testimony, does not compel the conclusion that it is “more likely than not” that he will be persecuted either on the basis of his involvement with the FKM or his Christian religion. *Al-Harbi,*242 F.3d at 888; *see also Gu v. Gonzales,*454 F.3d 1014, 1021 (9th Cir.2006).

Accordingly, his petition for review of his application for withholding of removal is denied.

DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 6 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 6 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 774 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 774

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 46-02 21st Street in Long Island City, New York, as the ``Geraldine 
                    Ferraro Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2009

 Mrs. Maloney (for herself, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Higgins, Mr. 
Hinchey, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Nadler of New York, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Serrano, 
   Mr. Engel, Mr. Towns, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. 
Israel, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Hall of New York, Mr. Lee of New York, and Mr. 
King 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 46-02 21st Street in Long Island City, New York, as the ``Geraldine 
                    Ferraro Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. GERALDINE FERRARO POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 46-02 21st Street in Long Island City, New York, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Geraldine Ferraro Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Geraldine 
Ferraro Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 25-2 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 1
Clear All

        29 March 2023    

                    Commander, Navy Installations Command Rolls Out Maintenance QR Codes to  Unaccompanied Housing across the Shore Enterprise                 
                WASHINGTON - Residents of Navy unaccompanied housing (UH) now have a convenient way to request maintenance and report issues, right from their smart mobile device.            

        27 December 2022    

                    QR Codes Are Changing The Customer Service Game Across Navy Region Mid-Atlantic                 
                A new Quick Response code program is taking customer service to the next level around the region.             

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OFNATURE’S SUNSHINE PRODUCTS, INC.PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Nature’s SunshineProducts, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2009as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Stephen M. Bunker, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer of Nature’s Sunshine Products, Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertify that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Stephen M. Bunker                                            |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Stephen M. Bunker                                                |   |
| Executive  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |   |
| March 16, 2010                                              |   |

 

----
1 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

FOR THE EIGHTH DISTRICT 

EL PASO, TEXAS 

THE STATE OF TEXAS §

§

VS. § CAUSE NO. 08-16-00240-CR

§ TRIAL CAUSE NO. 20150D05389 

THOMAS COMPTOIS §

MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE 

MOTION FOR REHEARING 

NOW COMES, THOMAS COMPTOIS, by and through his Attorney of record, 

CHARLES LOUIS ROBERTS, and moves to extend the time for filing the MOTION FOR 

REHEARING, and for grounds would show this Court the following: 

I.

A. The deadline for filing the MOTION FOR REARING is September 8, 2018.

B. The APPELLANT seeks an extension of thirty (30) days. 

C. The reason for the need of such an extension is as follows: 

1. Counsel received the Opinion while preparing for a major Felony Trial in State v. 

Joshua Gray, Cause No.20170D02161, starting on September 10, 2018. 

D. This is the first extension of time regarding this item. 

II. 

This extension is sought in the interest of Justice and not for the purpose of delay. 

 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant respectfully request 

that this Honorable Court grant Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to file MOTION FOR 

REHEARING until October 8, 2018. 

ACCEPTED

08-16-00240-CR

EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS

EL PASO, TEXAS

9/4/2018 2:26 PM

DENISE PACHECO

CLERK

08-16-00240-CR

 FILED IN 8th COURT OF APPEALS EL PASO, TEXAS 9/4/2018 2:26:56 PM DENISE PACHECO Clerk
2

 Respectfully Submitted,

 /s/ Charles L. Roberts /s/

 CHARLES L. ROBERTS

 300 E. Main, Suite 640

 State Bar. No. 1700100

 El Paso, Texas 79901

 (915) 532-9475

 (915) 534-7417 Fax

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that the foregoing Motion was e-served to the office of the El Paso County 

District Attorney, 500 E. San Antonio, Room 201, El Paso, Texas 79901 on this the 4th day of 

September, 2018.

 /s/ Charles L. Roberts /s/

 CHARLES L. ROBERTS 

 300 E. Main, Suite 640

 State Bar. No. 1700100

 El Paso, Texas 79901

 (915) 532-9475

 (915) 534-7417 Fax
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marion COX, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6068.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2013.

Decided: May 29, 2013.

Marion Cox, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*246Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marion Cox seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealabihty will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cox has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Cox’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:

> (1) newly discovered evidence that ... would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or

> (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp.2012). Cox’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1757 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1757

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the limitation 
on the amount individuals can deduct for certain State and local taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2019

 Ms. Underwood (for herself and Mr. Casten of Illinois) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the limitation 
on the amount individuals can deduct for certain State and local taxes.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN LIMITATION ON DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN STATE AND 
              LOCAL TAXES OF INDIVIDUALS.

    (a) In General.--Section 164(b)(6)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking ``$10,000 ($5,000 in the case of a 
married individual filing a separate return)'' and inserting ``$15,000 
(twice such amount in the case of a joint return)''.
    (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Section 164(b) of such Code is amended 
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(7) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any taxable 
        year beginning after December 31, 2019, the $15,000 amount in 
        paragraph (6)(B) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
                    ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
                    ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined 
                under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which 
                the taxable year begins, determined by substituting 
                `calendar year 2018' for `calendar year 2016' in 
                subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof.
        If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not a 
        multiple of $100, such amount shall be rounded to the next 
        lowest multiple of $100.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2018.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lenore Schnee, Respondent-Appellant, v Norman Schnee, Appellant-Respondent.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered June 26, 1987, which, *inter alia,*(1) awarded maintenance to the wife in the sum of $400 per week for five years, and (2) granted a distributive award to the wife in the sum of $514,611, (3) awarded a counsel fee to the wife in the sum of $25,000 and an accountant’s fee in the sum of $5,000, and the plaintiff wife cross-appeals from so much of the same judgment as (1) awarded her less than 30% of the marital assets, (2) awarded her maintenance of only $400 per week for five years, and (3) disregarded the period of cohabitation prior to the parties’ ceremonial marriage in distributing the parties’ assets.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, by deleting from the second decretal paragraph the words "four hundred dollars ($400.00)” and substituting therefor the words "five hundred dollars ($500.00)” and by deleting from that decretal paragraph the words "for five years (5) years (260 weeks) or”; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

At the time of their marriage in November 1977, the *666plaintiff was 48 years old and the defendant was 32. The childless marriage was the second for each party. The defendant owned a lucrative knitwear business which he inherited from his father. The plaintiff was employed in the business as a bookkeeper at a net salary of about $275 per week. By 1984 the business was generating substantial and increasing income and numerous perquisites enabled the couple to maintain a lavish home in Brookville, New York, and a vacation home in Boca Raton, Florida. They acquired collections of paintings, porcelain figurines and other objects d’art, and three luxury automobiles; took numerous vacations and enjoyed a generally comfortable life-style. At the time of trial, the plaintiff was approximately 58 years of age and had been unemployed since August 1985, when she commenced this matrimonial action and the defendant had discharged her from her position as bookkeeper with his business.

The trial court’s distribution of the parties’ property was equitable considering the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties and we find no reason to disturb it.

However, we do find that the trial court’s award to the plaintiff of maintenance in the amount of $400 per week for five years was inadequate. In view of her age, which presents an obstacle to finding a new position, her limited earning capacity as a bookkeeper, the parties’ lavish standard of living during their marriage and the defendant husband’s substantial income, we find it more appropriate to grant the plaintiff an award of maintenance in the sum of $500 per week, to be paid until she remarries or she or the defendant dies *(see, Neumark v Neumark,*120 AD2d 502, 504-505).

The other contentions of the parties have been considered and found to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Fiber, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 44-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05316-AKH Document 44-2 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 2