alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

                            DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF

                            TRANSDIGM HOLDING COMPANY

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

The undersigned directors and officers of TransDigm Holding Company, hereby
constitute and appoint Gregory Rufus, with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, as attorney-in-fact for each of the undersigned, and in the
name, place and stead of each of the undersigned, to execute on behalf of each
of the undersigned an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2000 pursuant to Section 13 of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and to execute any and all amendments to such report and to file the same,
with all exhibits thereto and other documents required to be filed in connection
therewith, granting to such attorney full power to act with or without the
others, and to have full power and authority to do and perform, in the name and
on behalf of each of the undersigned, every act whatsoever necessary, advisable
or appropriate to be done in the premises, hereby ratifying and approving the
act of said attorney and any such substitute.

This Power of Attorney may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original with respect to the person executing it.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          EXECUTED as of December 28, 2000.

<S>                                                           <C>
              /s/Douglas W.  Peacock                                               /s/William Hopkins
-------------------------------------------------             ------------------------------------------------------------
                Douglas W.  Peacock                                            William Hopkins, Director
            Chairman of the Board and
         Chief Executive Officer
         (Principal Executive Officer)

              /s/W.  Nicholas Howley                                                /s/Muzzafar Mirza
-------------------------------------------------             ------------------------------------------------------------
                W.  Nicholas Howley                                             Muzzafar Mirza, Director
      President and Chief Operating Officer
           (Principal Operating Officer)




                 /s/Stephen Berger                                                 /s/John W.  Paxton
-------------------------------------------------             ------------------------------------------------------------
             Stephen Berger, Director                                          John W.  Paxton, Director




              /s/Thomas R.  Wall, IV
-------------------------------------------------
           Thomas R.  Wall, IV, Director
</TABLE>
Andy BUXTON, petitioner, v. Brian H. THOMPSON, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Mercer, et al.

No. 17-8239.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 16, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Morgan HANSEN, petitioner, v. Thomas BLACK.

No. 17-1405.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Eric Lamar WOODLEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5604.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN MEDIA OPERATIONS, INC. FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER
ENDED JUNE 28, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-27-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1999
<CASH>                                           1,638
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,005
<ALLOWANCES>                                       269
<INVENTORY>                                      7,231
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,786
<PP&E>                                          23,641
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,278
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,041,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           65,945
<BONDS>                                        598,874
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                     212,410
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,041,280
<SALES>                                         67,838
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,838
<CGS>                                           55,911
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,911
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    18
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,402
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,457)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,244)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,701)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (2,581)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,282)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will still be held via teleconference.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, May 12, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will be held Thursday, May 12, 2022, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Matthew O'Sullivan. For more information please contact Matthew O'Sullivan at 1-888-912-1227 or (510) 907-5274, or write TAP Office, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612-5217 or contact us at the website:                     *https://www.improveirs.org.*                     The agenda will include various IRS issues.                

Dated: April 11, 2022.

Kevin Brown,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2022-08194 Filed 4-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
EXHIBIT 13.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the amended Annual Report of Wealth Minerals Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended November 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2008 (the Report), I, Hendrik Van Alphen, the President and 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.



Date:  March 14, 2008



/s/ Hendrik Van Alphen

Hendrik Van Alphen
President and Chief Executive Officer
A WOMAN'S FRIEND PREGNANCY RESOURCE CLINIC, et al., petitioners, v. Xavier BECERRA, Attorney General of California.

No. 16-1146.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 28, 2018.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of *National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra,* 585 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 2361, --- L.E.2d ---- (2018).
Yolanda BELL, petitioner, v. INOVA HEALTH CARE, dba Inova Fairfax Hospital

Yolanda Bell, petitioner, v. Inova Health Care, dba Inova Fairfax Hospital.

No. 17-8685.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ERNESTO TRASLAVINA, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 22-10198 

D.C. No. 

2:87-cr-00166-APG-LRL-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Ernesto Traslavina appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his 

motion to discharge his fine and motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Traslavina contends that the district court should have discharged his fine 

* 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).

FILED

MAR 20 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-10198 

because it was a condition of supervision and his supervised release term had 

expired, and because the government’s deadline to collect the payment had

elapsed. However, Traslavina’s criminal judgment shows that the fine was 

imposed as an independent sanction rather than a condition of supervision. 

Additionally, the government’s collection efforts were authorized under the 

extended deadline provided by the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, see 18 

U.S.C. § 3613(b), which is applicable to judgments, like Traslavina’s, that were

entered before the statute’s enactment. See United States v. Blackwell, 852 F.3d 

1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 2017). Traslavina’s contrary arguments are unpersuasive.

Traslavina’s challenges to the district court’s order denying reconsideration 

are also unavailing. The court did not abuse its discretion by denying 

reconsideration because Traslavina simply repeated his arguments for termination 

of the fine and added an unrelated claim requesting the return of property seized 

over 30 years ago. See Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & 

Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating standard of review and explaining 

that a reconsideration motion may not be used to raise new arguments).

We do not consider Traslavina’s remaining arguments because they were not 

distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 

983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
Albert F. CATANACH, petitioner, v. David K. THOMSON, Judge, District Court of New Mexico, 1st Judicial District.

No. 17-1228.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
# C_2012184EN.01001903.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/19

---

Order of the General Court of 27 April 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Club de Golf Peralada (WINE SPA)

(Case T-183/09) (1)

1

2012/C 184/36

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.

1

---
William Nathaniel WASHINGTON, petitioner, v. Marc DIAMOND.

No. 17-8218.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 16, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
#### L. S. Brannon, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division A.

Opinion filed April 6, 1929.

*J ames N. Daniel*and *T. E. Buntin,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Fred H. Davis,*Attorney General, and *Boy Campbell,*Assistant, for the State.

Ellis, J.

L. S. Bannon was indicted for the crime of embezzlement in the sum of more than $500.00 which was. alleged to be the property of Robert R. Carpenter. Upon a plea of not guilty the accused was convicted and sentenced.

The facts out of which the charge of embezzlement grew were briefly as follows: Brannon was a fire insurance agent at Marianna, Fla. He represented two or more fire insurance companies. Carpenter was an agent or solicitor for Brannon at Sneads, Fla. His services -were under an agreement with Brannon to be paid for by the latter. The commission which the insurance companies allowed to Brannon upon the premiums received on policies of insurance were to be equally divided between Brannon and Carpenter on business secured by the latter.

*489Many policies of insurance which Carpenter procured to be issued at Sneads and the premiums on which were sent by him to Brannon were cancelled at different times and Carpenter procured other insurance to be issued in such cases and paid the premiums thereon and demanded of Brannon the return of the unearned premium upon the policies which had been cancelled.

Brannon failed to return it all but held back some of it on account of claims which he had against Carpenter arising upon other transactions, one of which was where Brannon had to pay a fire loss of $800.00 upon a policy of insurance which had been cancelled and in which Carpenter had neglected to notify the insured of such cancellation. Brannon held that Carpenter owed him that sum because the fault was Carpenter’s and the sum which Brannon had to pay for Carpenter’s fault was greater than Brannon owed to Carpenter on the other transaction.

We are of the opinion that the foregoing facts do not constitute embezzlement on the part of Brannon.

The judgment is reversed.

Terrell, C. J., and Brown, J., concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Charles V. SCHNEIDER, petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 17-1362.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Deloris PHILLIPS, petitioner, v. DALLAS CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, et al.

No. 16-8384.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
# L_2011024EN.01012601.xml

| 27.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 24/126 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 24/126

---

Corrigendum to procès–verbal of rectification to the Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed at Bridgetown, Barbados on 15 October 2008 and at Haiti on 10 December 2009

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 289 of 30 October 2008
  )

This corrigendum has been carried out by means of a procès-verbal of rectification signed at Brussels on 15 December 2010 with the Council as depository.

procès-verbal

On page II/1511, Appendix 1 to Annex III ‘Schedule of tariff liberalisation of the CARIFORUM States’, the tariff codes in the second column, immediately following tariff codes ‘BHM 8703.22’ and ‘DOM 8703.22’:

for:

| ‘DOM | 8703.21.10 |
| --- | --- |
| DOM | 8703.21.20 |
| DOM | 8703.21.99’, |

‘DOM

8703.21.10

DOM

8703.21.20

DOM

8703.21.99’,

read:

| ‘DOM | 8703.22.10 |
| --- | --- |
| DOM | 8703.22.20 |
| DOM | 8703.22.99’. |

‘DOM

8703.22.10

DOM

8703.22.20

DOM

8703.22.99’.

---
Bud Pratt WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5098.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
**Release:      #4396-00       For Release:      April 17, 2000**

**CFTC�S TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY COMMITTEE       TO MEET ON APRIL 25, 2000**

      Washington -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission�s Technology      Advisory Committee (TAC) will hold its first meeting on Tuesday, April      25, 2000, from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. CFTC Chairman William Rainer will chair      the TAC. Commissioner James Newsome will serve as the TAC Vice-Chairman.      The meeting will be held at the Commission�s Washington, D.C.      headquarters, at Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street,      N.W., in the first floor hearing room (Room 1000).    

      The TAC was created by the Commission for the purpose of obtaining input      on emerging technologies, the impact of technology on financial services      and commodity markets, and the appropriate legislative or regulatory      response to increasing use of technology in the markets. The membership      of the TAC consists of 28 individuals representing electronic markets,      electronic communication systems, U.S. futures exchanges, a      self-regulatory organization, financial intermediaries, market users and      traders.    

      The agenda for the April 25, 2000, meeting includes a discussion of the      following topics:    

-         Oversight of electronic order routing and execution systems;      
-         Common Trading Platforms and Common Clearing;      
-         Cutting-edge trends in the financial services industry.      

      For further information about the TAC meeting, contact Marcia Blase,      Counsel to Commissioner Newsome, at (202) 418-5138 or De�Ana Dow,      Counsel to Chairman Rainer, at (202) 418-5038.
1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-3847

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Elizabeth A. Van Buskirk, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 19, 2009 Filed: May 22 2009

___________ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Elizabeth Van Buskirk appeals th e sentence the district court 1 imposed upon revoking her supervised release. Counsel moved to withdraw a nd filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. We denied counsel’s motion and requested briefs addressing whether the district court committed reversible procedur al error by failing to calculate or consider-2- the Chapter 7 advisory Guidelines range. Af ter reviewing the brie fs, we conclude that there was no procedural error. Although th e court did not specifically refer to the Chapter 7 advisory Guidelines range at the sentencing hearing, th e record as a whole reflects that the court was aware of the ra nge: the violation worksheet was available to the court and counsel, both the governmentand defense counsel requested that Van Buskirk be sentenced at the low end of th e advisory Guidelines range, and the court conferred with the probation officer immediat ely prior to imposing the sentence. The record also reflects that, recognizing the a dvisory Guidelines ra nge, the court chose to sentence Van Buskirk above the range af ter considering that she had repeatedly violated the conditions of her supervised release, that she was a methamphetamine addict and manufacturer, that she had originally received a significant sentence reduction, and that she was a ba d influence on her son. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e), 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(C) (sentencing factors). Finally, we conclude that Van Buskirk’s sentence is not unreasonable, see United States v. Tyson , 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam), because it was within the statutory maximum, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) a nd (b)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a)(1), 3583(e)(3), a nd it resulted from the court’s consideration of proper sentencing factors, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e), 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(C). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________
Jacob Brent SMITH, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 17-5246.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                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 Xstream Beverage Network,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report"), I, Theodore
Farnsworth, Chairman and CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS.
1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


                                                   /s/ Theodore Farnsworth
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Theodore Farnsworth,
                                                   Chairman, CEO, principal
                                                   executive officer and
                                                   principal financial officer
                                                   May 22, 2006

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
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.