alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16116]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7002-4]


Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Pursuant to the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended 
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
administrative settlement concerning the Shore Refinery site, Kilgore, 
Gregg County, Texas with the parties referenced in the Supplementary 
Information portion of this Notice.
    The settlement require the settling parties to perform a removal 
action, and make payment of future response costs to the Hazardous 
Substances Superfund. The settling parties were provided orphan share 
compensation in the form of forgiveness of past costs. The settlement 
includes a covenant not to sue pursuant to Sections 106 and 107 of 
CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this 
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the 
settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may 
modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received 
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any 
comments received will be available for public inspection at 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas, 75202-2733.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 27, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement and additional background 
information relating to the settlement are available for public 
inspection at 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, 75202-2733. A copy of 
the proposed settlement may be obtained from Carl Bolden, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas, 75202-2733 at (214) 665-6713. Comments should 
reference the Shore Refinery Superfund Site, Kilgore, Gregg County, 
Texas and EPA Docket Number 6-01-2000, and should be addressed to Carl 
Bolden at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Michael Boydston,1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, Texas, 75202-2733 at (214) 665-7376.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Atlas Processing Company c/o Pennzoil-Quaker State Company
LaGloria Oil and Gas Company c/o Crown Central Petroleum
Texaco Inc.
Eastman Chemical Company
ExxonMobil Chemical Company

    Dated: June 13, 2001.
Jerry Clifford,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 01-16116 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
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




I,
      Michael J. Loiacono, the Chief Financial Officer and Chief
      Accounting Officer of  Global Axcess Corp (the “Company”), certify,
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
      the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the second quarter ended
      June
      30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a)
      or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and




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




Dated:
      August 14, 2006


/s/ Michael
              J. LoiaconoName:
              Michael J. LoiaconoTitle:
                Chief Financial Officer and Chief
                Accounting Officer
Luis A. SORO, petitioner, v. The KEYES COMPANY.

No. 17-7675.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District denied.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 51044 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
TIMOTHY D. JACKSON, also known as Timothy Jackson , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:08

- CR

- 475

- 5

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Timothy D. Jackson, federal prisoner # 18342

- 280, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentencing reduction based on retroactive Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. The Supreme Court has prescribed a two

- step inqui ry for a district court that is considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). The court must first determine whether a prisoner is eligible for a reduction as set

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 10, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-51044 Document: 00513755127 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2016No. 15

- 51044

2 forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a). Id. If he is eligi ble, then the district court must “consider any applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion,” any reduction is warranted under the particular facts of the

case. Id. at 827. We review the decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c) (2) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson , 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). The district court implicitly found Jackson eligible for the reduction but
determined that a reduction was unwarranted due to his ina dequately represented criminal history, the need to protect the public, and the need to provide adequate deterrence. Jackson contends that this was an abuse of discretion, urging that the court gave excessive weight to factors that did not justify denial and inadequate weight to factors supporting a reduction, including his post

- sen tencing rehabilitative efforts.
The record reflects that the district court considered Jackson ’s motion as a whole, gave specific reasons for its denial, and referenced the rele vant § 3553(a) factors. Jackson thus cannot show an abuse of discretion on the district court’s part. See Henderson , 636 F.3d at 717; United States v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Whitebird , 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995 ).
AFFIRMED. Case: 15-51044 Document: 00513755127 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2016
Luke T. WEST, petitioner, v. Carrie L. RIETH, et al.

No. 17-7121.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until March 13, 2018, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
#### UNITED STATES v. WHITE.

No. 8769.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Argued Feb. 15, 1945.

Decided Feb. 20, 1945.

Robert J. Fitzsimmons, of New York City, for appellant.

Leon Ulman, Dept, of Justice, of Washington, D. C. (Tom C. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Frederick V. Follmer, U. S. Atty., of Scranton, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PARKER, MARIS, and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant has appealed from the order of the District Court refusing to suspend the execution of the sentence previously imposed upon him and upheld by the Supreme Court, 322 U.S. 694, 64 S.Ct. 1248, and to place him on probation. The suspension of sentence in a criminal case and the placing of the defendant on probation is a privilege which the District Court may in the exercise of its discretion accord to a defendant but which cannot be demanded as a right. Burns v. United States, 287 U.S. 216, 220, 53 S.Ct. 154, 77 L.Ed. 266. The action of the court in refusing to grant the privilege is accordingly not reviewable on appeal except possibly for arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the District Judge which amounts to an abuse of discretion. The record in this case discloses that the District Judge considered in open court all the reasons advanced by the defendant in support of his application for suspension and probation but reached the conclusion under all the circumstances that it was his duty to let the sentence stand. His action was clearly neither arbitrary nor capricious and we may, therefore, not review it.

The order of the District Court is affirmed. Our mandate, however, will not issue for 30 days in order that the defendant may have an opportunity to make an application for executive clemency.
Vincent DAVIS, aka Terrell Strong, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 17-7889.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Office denied.
PROMISSORY NOTE


$480,000
September 15, 2010
 For Value Received, the undersigned jointly and severally promises to pay to the order of





YTB INTERNATIONAL, INC.





the sum of Four Hundred Eighty Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($480,000.00), together with interest thereon from the date hereof until paid at the rate of Six Percent (6.00%) per annum, only being payable in monthly installments of $9,279.79, the first such installment being due on the 16th day of January, 2011, and a like installment being due on the 16th day of each succeeding month thereafter, and a final installment, including the full balance of principal and interest thereon being due on the 16th day of June, 2016.





The payment of this note is secured by the lien of the improvements made to the Lessee's property located at 1901 E. Edwardsville Road, Wood River, Illinois.





Makers reserve the right and privilege of prepaying any amount on the principal of this note, on any interest payment date, interest to abate on all payments so made. Such prepayments, if any, shall be applied to the principal amount outstanding and shall not extend of or postpone the due date of any subsequent monthly installments or change the amount of such installments unless the holder hereof shall otherwise agree in writing.





If any payment of principal or interest be not made promptly and in strict accordance with the tenor and effect hereof the holder of Holders shall, notify the Makers that this Promissory Note shall be in Default if such payment is not paid within ten (10) days of such notice. If Default occurs because of the Makers' failure to cure within such ten (10) day period after the holder or holders' notice of intent to declare Default, then at the election of the holder or holders of this note made at any time after such default, the entire principal sum hereof, then unpaid, together with accrued interest thereon, shall at once become payable.





The principal amount, and each installment thereof, shall bear interest at the rate of Ten Percent (10.00%) per annum after it becomes due whether by acceleration or otherwise, and during the period of any default hereunder.














Every person now or at any time liable, whether primarily or secondarily, for the payment of the indebtedness hereby evidenced, for each such person, expressly waived presentment for payment, notice of dishonor, protest, notice of protest, and diligence in collection, and assents that the time of said payment may be extended without anywise modifying, altering, releasing, affecting, or limiting her liability.





This Promissory Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Illinois.





ZEISER AUTOMOTIVE GROUPBY:
/s/ David G. Zeiser – PresidentAttest:
/s/ Clay Winfield   9/28/10
Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We have issued our reports dated March 16, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of KIT digital, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2010. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of KIT digital, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-164655, effective February 12, 2010, and File No. 333-169918, effective October 22, 2010) and on Form S-8 (File No, 33-171420, effective December 23, 2010).
 
 /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
 
 New York, NY
 August 3, 2011
# C_2010051EN.01002102.xml

| 27.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/21

---

Action brought on 17 December 2009 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-526/09)

2010/C 51/33

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and G. Braga da Cruz, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by permitting the discharge of industrial waste water from the industrial unit ‘Estação de Serviço Sobritos’, situated in the Matosinhos area, without adequate authorisation, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment. (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by permitting the discharge of industrial waste water from the industrial unit ‘Estação de Serviço Sobritos’, situated in the Matosinhos area, without adequate authorisation, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment. (1)

1

| — | Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Portuguese Republic has not to date informed the Commission that the licensing of the industrial unit ‘Estação de Serviço Sobritos’ has been completed.

---

(1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.

1

---
II-00228

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Michael Lewandowski <mlewand941 @netscape.net>

Friday, December 3, 2010 2:24 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Michael Lewandowski

1424 Reed Rd

Scottsville, NY 14546
II-O0140

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ron Dixon <xidnor@yahoo.com>

Saturday, December 4, 2010 6:57 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Ron Dixon

po box 223403

Princeville, HI 96722
1

Modular give up agreement & Futures agreement addendum 

Trade

Framework

Documentation 

EB n

EB 3

EB 2

Asset Manager

Block trade

Allocations

Fund 1 Collective trust

Account 2 Separate acct.

Fund 3 Pension plan

Fund 4 Hedge Fund

Fund 1 Clearing Member/ FCM A

Account 2 Clearing Member/ FCM B

Fund 3 Clearing Member/ FCM C

Fund 4 Clearing Member/ FCM D

Client n Clearing Member/ FCM E

EB 1

Client Fund n

Executing Brokers Clients Clearing Members (FCMs)

Execution break (in modular agreement)

EB pays if EB is at fault Client pays if client is at fault

Clearing break (in futures addendum)

Client pays if client is at fault FCM pays if FCM is at fault

Clearing Members (FCMs) Clients Executing Brokers

• Provide clearing services to market 

participants.

• Clearing services provided by FCM 

should be based primarily on client 

counterparty risk assessment and 

agnostic to modular give-up document 

version applicable to client

• Cannot limit the number of 

counterparties or the counterparty with 

which a client may execute the trade.

• Must have choice of executing 

broker contingent on executing 

broker evaluation of client.

• Must have a choice of FCM, 

contingent on FCM evaluation of 

client.

• Provide execution to client based 

on executing broker evaluation of 

client.

• May require additional clearing 

support via the modular give-up 

document

Futures agreement (clearing addendum)

Executing Brokers = Liquidity providers / executing dealer for clients (market risk)

Futures Clearing Merchants = Provide clearing services to clients for the clearing houses where they are members (clearing risk)

Roles

Modular agreement (give up)

1. Modular agreement (bilateral) 

with select EBs by client choice.

2. Modular agreement (trilateral) 

with select EBs. 

Increasing

client

credit 

worthiness

Trade break

1. Futures agreement addendum -

select FCMs of choice.

2. Futures agreement addendum –

select FCM of choice.

Potential Arrangements

If tri-party requested by EB
Jerry WANZER, petitioner, v. Debra GLOOR, et al.

No. 17-6582.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
Geshik-O-Binese MARTIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7977.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Martin S. PARNESS, petitioner, v. Chris CHRISTIE, Governor of New Jersey, et al.

No. 16-9393.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Exhibit 10.(a).1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 chinadotcom
corporation (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 20-F), I, Peter Yip, Chief Executive 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 Form 20-F 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 Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: June 16, 2003



/S/ PETER YIPPeter YipChief Executive Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to chinadotcom corporation and will be retained by
chinadotcom corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
John Joseph BRAVATA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9456.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Christian Dior WOMACK, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6411.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
**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 ROO Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lou Kerner, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





April
              2,
              2007
            
            /s/
              Lou
              KernerLou
              KernerChief
              Financial Officer