alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31267-31268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14629]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3693]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``The Art of Chola Bronzes''

AGENCY: United States Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations:
    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 
1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, I hereby determine that the object 
to be included in the exhibition ``The Art of CholaBronzes,'' imported 
from abroad for the temporary exhibition without profit within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The object is imported 
pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign lender. I also determine 
that the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at the Arthur M. 
Sackler Gallery, Washington, DC from on or about November 10, 2002 to 
on or about March 9, 2003 and the Dallas Museum of Art, Dallas, TX from 
on or about April

[[Page 31268]]

4, 2003 to on or about June 15, 2003, and the Cleveland Museum of Art, 
Cleveland, OH from on or about July 4, 2003 to on or about September 
14, 2003 is in the national interest. Public Notice of 
theseDeterminations is ordered to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-
Adviser,Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202/619-6981).The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-
44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700,Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: June 1, 2001.
Helena Kane Finn,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United 
States Department of State.
[FR Doc. 01-14629 Filed 6-8-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-U
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, **Francis R. McAllister,**certify that;1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Stillwater Mining Company (the “Company”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15(d)-15(f)) for the Company and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Company, is madeknown to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financialreporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed underour supervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation offinancial statements for external purposes inaccordance with generally accepted accountingprinciples;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’sdisclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in theCompany’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Company’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of theCompany’s Board of Directors: a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Company’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Company’sinternal controls over financial reporting.        Dated: February 26, 2008 /s/ Francis R. McAllister   Francis R. McAllister   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### Linda TUCKER; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 08-56206.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 6, 2010.

Linda Tucker, Lomita, CA, pro se.

James Tucker, Lomita, CA, pro se.

Jeffrey Tucker, Lomita, CA, pro se.

George Konik, Lomita, CA, pro se.

Blithe Smith Bock, Cecil W. Marr, Esquire, Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Linda Tucker, James Tucker, Jeffrey Tucker, and George Konik appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for failure to prosecute their 42 U.S.C. *203§ 1988 action alleging that members of the Los Angeles Police Department used excessive force during a pre-arrest search. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, *Al-Torki v. Kaempen,*78 F.3d 1381, 1385 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the appeal is timely because it was filed within 150 days of the entry of the district court’s order of dismissal, and judgment was not separately entered. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(7); *Ingram v. ACandS, Inc.,*977 F.2d 1332, 1339 (9th Cir.1992).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute after granting multiple continuances during the eight years of its pendency, especially after warning plaintiffs before the last continuance about the possibility of dismissal if they appeared without counsel or unprepared for trial. See *Ash v. Cvetkov,*739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir.1984) (listing factors to assess dismissal for failure to prosecute and affirming dismissal in the absence of the district court’s explanations of its reasons because record showed that plaintiffs’ delays were unreasonable and created a presumption of prejudice to defendant).

We do not consider appellant’s remaining contentions. *Al-Torki,*78 F.3d at 1386 (interlocutory orders are not appealable after dismissal for failure to prosecute regardless of whether the failure to prosecute was purposeful or not).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Document Headings

                    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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable  material, and personnel information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Grants Review Committee.                    

*Date:*                         February 20, 2001.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 AM to 3:30 PM.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Double Tree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         John R. Lymangrover, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, National Institutes of Health, NIAMS, Natcher Bldg., Room 5As25N, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-4952.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 9, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-1452  Filed 1-12-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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  amended quarterly report of Castmor Resources Ltd. on
Form  10-Q  for  the quarter ended May 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Fidel Thomas, President,
Chief  Executive  Officer,  Chief  Financial  Officer  and  Principal Accounting
Officer  of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 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,  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.




Date: July 7, 2009                         By /s/ Fidel Thomas
                                              Fidel Thomas
                                              President, Chief Executive Officer
                                              Chief Financial Officer, and
                                              Principal Accounting Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1





SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF DOT VN, INC.





In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Dot VN, Inc. for the quarter ended January 31, 2011, the undersigned, Thomas Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of Dot VN, Inc., does hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2011 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2011 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Dot VN, Inc.





Date: March 17, 2011
/s/ Thomas JohnsonThomas JohnsonChief Executive Officer and principal executive officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 990 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 990

 To amend title 49, United States Code, to establish additional goals 
                       for airport master plans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2009

Mr. Graves (for himself and Mr. Cleaver) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, to establish additional goals 
                       for airport master plans.

    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 ``Airport Master Plan Customer 
Convenience Enhancement, Security, and Sustainability Act of 2009'' or 
the ``ACCESS Act 2009''.

SEC. 2. AIRPORT MASTER PLANS.

    Section 47101 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(i) Additional Goals for Airport Master Plans.--In addition to 
the goals set forth in subsection (g)(2), the Secretary shall encourage 
airport sponsors and State and local officials to develop airport 
master plans that take into account--
            ``(1) customer convenience and access to airport 
        facilities; and
            ``(2) threats of a terrorist attack, including the need to 
        continually monitor and adjust plans to address new terrorist 
        threats.''.
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the quarterly report of Kerrisdale Mining Corporation. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2008 (the "Report"), I, Huoqi Chen , President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  /s/Huoqi Chen Huoqi Chen, President December 5, 2008
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee v. Willie David MYLES, Defendant— Appellant.

No. 05-51357

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 14, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James Scott Sullivan, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

*387Willie David Myles appeals the sentences imposed following the revocation of his supervised release terms following his convictions for distribution of cocaine. He argues that the district court erred by imposing a sentence outside the guidelines sentence range and that the district court erred in not explicitly referencing the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Before *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), we reviewed a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release to determine whether it violated the law or was plainly unreasonable. *See United States v. Gonzalez,*250 F.3d 923, 925 (5th Cir.2001). Also before *Booker,*if, like Myles, a defendant argued that the district court failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors for the first time on appeal, we reviewed that issue for plain error. *See United States v. Vontsteen,*950 F.2d 1086, 1091, 1093 (5th Cir. 1992). After *Booker,*it is unclear whether the same standards apply or if we instead review a revocation sentence only for “unreasonableness”. *United States v. Hinson, 429*F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir.2005), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 1804, 164 L.Ed.2d 540 (2006). Similar to *Hinson,*we need not decide the standard-of-review issues presented by this appeal because Myles’s sentences are proper under any standard. *Id.*

The 21-month terms of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of Myles’s supervised release did not exceed the statutory maximum terms of imprisonment that the district court could have imposed. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Moreover, the 21-month sentences were within the guidelines range recommended by U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). The district court had the authority and discretion to impose consecutive sentences upon revocation of Myles’s concurrent terms of supervised release. *See United States v. Gonzalez,*250 F.3d 923, 925-29 (5th Cir.2001).

The district court explicitly stated that the ends of justice and the best interest of the public would not be served if Myles continued on supervised release. Moreover, because the sentences imposed upon revocation of the supervised release terms were within the applicable advisory guidelines ranges, it is inferred that the district court considered all of the § 3553(a) factors. *See United States v. Candia,*454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir.2006). Accordingly, because Myles has not shown error with respect to his sentences, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *387published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of KBS Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc.
(the Registrant) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, David E. Snyder, the Chief Financial Officer of the
Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge and belief:



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



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 6, 2011



/s/ David E. SnyderDavid E. Snyder Chief Financial Officer
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1008

Natural Gas Basis Swap - Dom South - Platts Inside FERC

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the mathematical result of subtracting the price of the 

NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas futures contract, as defined in Floating Price B, from the monthly 

price published by Platts Inside FERC for the location specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the Platts Inside FERC Dom South

published price for the corresponding contract month.

FLOATING PRICE B

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas 

futures contract final settlement price for the corresponding contract month on the last trading 

day for that contract month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be MMBtus (million British thermal units). Each shall be valued as the 

contract quantity multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods.

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per MMBtu. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.001 per MMBtu. The minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day prior to the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00018-CV

THOMAS S. RHEMAN

v.

DEBORAH RHEMAN

On Appeal from the

103rd District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2019-DCL-02867-D

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 9, 2020
#### Luis DOMINGUEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.L. RUNNELS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-16865.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.*

Filed Dec. 12, 2006.

Luis Dominguez-Cruz, Susanville, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Dane R. Gillette, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Luis Dominguez-Cruz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.

Dominguez-Cruz contends that his rights to due process, to a fair trial and to cross-examine a witness were violated due to his accomplice’s plea agreement. We conclude that the agreement did not violate Dominguez-Cruz’s rights. *See Allen v. Woodford,*395 F.3d 979, 995 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the state court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Dominguez-Cruz’s request to broaden the certificate of appealability is denied. *See*9th Cir. R. 22~l(e); *Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.