alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 22, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 70629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23061]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection


Triennial Status Report and Status Report Fee: General Notice

AGENCY: Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of due date for Status Report and Fee.

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

SUMMARY: This is to advise Customs brokers that the Triennial Status 
Report Fee of $100 that is assessed for each license held by a broker 
whether it may be an individual, partnership, association or 
corporation, is due during the month of February 2006 along with the 
corresponding status report.

DATES: Due date for payment of the fee and status report: February 28, 
2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Russell Morris, Broker Management 
Branch, (202) 344-2717.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1641(g) and 19 
CFR 111.30(d), each broker must file a written status report and pay 
the corresponding fee of $100 every three years. The report is due 
every three years regardless of the date the license was issued to the 
broker. The last status report and fee were due during the month of 
February 2003. Reports and fees must be filed during the month of 
February 2006, and be addressed to the director of the port that 
originally delivered the license to the broker. No reports or fees 
should be submitted directly to Customs and Border Protection 
Headquarters.
    The elements that must be included in the report are prescribed in 
19 CFR 111.30(d). While no particular format is required, a model 
report may be obtained from your local Customs and Border Protection 
port office.

    Dated: November 15, 2005.
Jayson P. Ahern,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations.
[FR Doc. 05-23061 Filed 11-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
*

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-2044

___________

Wayne Allen Berry, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Leonard Graves, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 15, 2003

Filed: January 22, 2003

___________

Before LOKEN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Wayne Allen Berry appeals the district court’s*

 denial of Berry’s 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 petition for habeas relief. Berry claims his trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to object to the prosecutor’s alleged references to Berry’s post-arrest silence

during closing argument. Having carefully reviewed the record, we believe the

district court correctly agreed with the state court’s decision that the prosecutor’s

comments did not violate Berry’s right to silence. Three of the prosecutor’s
-2-

statements were permissible references to Berry’s pre-arrest silence. Vick v.

Lockhart, 952 F.2d 999, 1003 (8th Cir. 1991). The prosecutor’s fourth statement, that

Berry had “eighty-eight days . . . in jail . . . to concoct his story and make it look good

when he gets up and testifies,” was not an impermissible reference to Berry’s postarrest silence. Catches v. United States, 582 F.2d 453,458 (8th Cir. 1978). Because

the state court reasonably concluded that defense counsel’s failure to object to the

prosecutor’s comments was not ineffective assistance, we affirm the judgment of the

district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 1-4 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 1-4 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 1-4 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 3 of 3
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.55 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health

May 19, 2016

Mr. R. Alexander Acosta
Secretary of Labor
Department of labor

200 Constitution Ave.
Washington, DC NW 20210

Honorable Secretary Acosta:

On behalf of the Department of Labor Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker
Health, I submit the attached recommendations and accompanying rationales that we adopted at
our April 18-20, 2017 meeting in Richland, WA. These recommendations fall within the scope
of the chartered mission of the Advisory Board and represent our ongoing attempts to address
multiple aspects of the current Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program.

Mr. Steinberg, Ms. Leiton and the rest of the leadership and staff of the Office of Workers
Compensation Program and the Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation continue to be very receptive to our work. We are also pleased to see that our
Board meetings are well-attended by the public, who very usefully express their views during
our public comments sessions and through submission of written comments.

We are making excellent progress, I believe, and realize that there is much work still to do
to assist the Department in assessing and, when needed, helping to improve this invaluable
program. We hope that our advice is useful and look forward to working with you in the future.

2
Sincefel

Steven Markowitz MD, DrPH

Chair

Advisory Board on Toxic Substances
and Worker Health
#### Salvador RIOS, Plaintiff-Appellant.

No. 04-41199.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

Salvador Rios, Three Rivers, TX, pro se.

Before JONES, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Salvador Rios, federal prisoner # 08394-023, wrote a letter about conditions at the Brooks County Detention Center on behalf of himself and other inmates, which was treated as a complaint in a civil rights action and dismissed without prejudice. Rios contends that federal officials subsequently mishandled his mail and legal materials, thereby hindering his refiling of a proper complaint. Rios seeks a remand *605and an opportunity to file an amended complaint. However, he fails to identify any specific defendant or violation of a constitutional right in connection with the dismissed action. He thus has identified no error in the district court’s dismissal. *See*28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(l).

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 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### STROUPE v. STROUPE

No. 206 PC

No. 103 (Fall Term)

Case below: 46 NC App 123

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 15 August 1980.
FII F COPY

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

1 —i**5'******

10/7/2015 COA No. 12-14-00232-CR

FOREMAN, FREDDIE JAMES Tr. Ct. No. 13CR-184 PD-0909-15

On this day, the Appellant's Pro Se petition for discretionary review has been

refused.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CATHY LUSK

1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354

TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
.

'
Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 17-15      Filed 02/01/2005     Page 1 of 3

Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 17-15      Filed 02/01/2005     Page 2 of 3

Case 7:04-cv-08928-KMK-LMS     Document 17-15      Filed 02/01/2005     Page 3 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-15031-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5639 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5639

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude executive branch 
 officers and employees from nonrecognition rules relating to the sale 
     of property to comply with conflict-of-interest requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 29, 2010

 Mr. Stearns 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 exclude executive branch 
 officers and employees from nonrecognition rules relating to the sale 
     of property to comply with conflict-of-interest requirements.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES FROM 
              CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST NONRECOGNITION RULES.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 1043(b)(1) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``an officer or 
employee of the executive branch, or a judicial officer,'' and 
inserting ``a judicial officer''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Paragraphs (1)(A) and (5)(B) of section 1043(b) of such 
        Code are each amended by striking ``judicial canon, or 
        executive order'' and inserting ``or judicial canon''.
            (2)(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 1043(b)(2) of such Code 
        is amended by striking ``judicial canon, or executive order'' 
        and all that follows through ``Code)'' and inserting ``or 
        judicial canon''.
            (B) Subparagraph (B) of section 1043(b)(2) of such Code is 
        amended to read as follows:
                    ``(B) that has been issued by the Judicial 
                Conference of the United States (or its designee), 
                and''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to sales after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Rumualda De La Cruz HEREDIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-73107.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.**

Decided April 4, 2005.

Rumualda De La Cruz Heredia, New-hall, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer Lightbody, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Rumualda De La Cruz Heredia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance without opinion of an immigration judge’s (“U”) denial of her application for cancellation of removal, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l). We vacate and remand.

The IJ denied cancellation on the grounds that Heredia failed to establish continuous physical presence, good moral character, and the requisite hardship, and the BIA summarily affirmed. We have jurisdiction to review whether an alien has met the continuous physical presence requirement, *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 853 (9th Cir.2003) and whether an alien is categorically ineligible for a finding of good moral character, *Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003), but we do not have jurisdiction to review whether an alien has satisfied the hardship requirement, which rests in the discretion of the agency, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *Romero-Torres,*327 F.3d at 890-91. Because the BIA affirmed without opinion, we have no way of knowing on which ground or grounds the BIA affirmed, and in turn whether we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s deci*155sion. *See Lanza v. Ashcroft,*389 F.3d 917, 919 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, we vacate the BIA’s decision and remand with instructions to clarify the grounds for its affirmance of the IJ’s denial of the application for cancellation of removal. *See id.*at 932.

VACATED and REMANDED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                    5

<LEGEND>
                            THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                            EXTRACTED FROM FORT JAMES CORPORATION'S JUNE 27,
                            1999,FORM 10-Q FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED
                            IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
                            STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<NAME>                      FORT JAMES CORPORATION
<CIK>                       0000053117
<MULTIPLIER>                 1,000,000

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           JUN-27-1999
<CASH>                                                           8
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  920
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                    819
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             1,893
<PP&E>                                                       7,501
<DEPRECIATION>                                               3,341
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               7,583
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        1,411
<BONDS>                                                      3,659
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                        22
<OTHER-SE>                                                   1,038
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 7,583
<SALES>                                                      3,388
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             3,388
<CGS>                                                       (2,311)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               (2,311)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            (122)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                386
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  (132)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            254
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  (5)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                (33)
<CHANGES>                                                      (22)
<NET-INCOME>                                                   193
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 0.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0.88


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

I, Michael J. Koss, Chief Executive Officer of Koss Corporation (the “Company”),hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:

 

(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company forthe quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of theCompany.

 

 
|   | /s/  Michael J. Koss                                            |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Michael  J. Koss                                                |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer, President and Chief Operating Officer |
|   | Date:  June 30, 2010                                       |

 

 

Note:  This certificationaccompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 and shall not be deemed filed, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, by the Company for purposes of Section 18 ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

----
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PC

Attorneys At Law

1251 Avenue of the Americas

18th Floor

New York, New York 10020

Tel: 212.262.6700

Fax: 212.262.7402

Attorneys for Defendants Cerberus 

Global Investments, LLC, Cerberus 

Capital Management, L.P., Cerberus Partners, L.P. 

and Cerberus Global Investment Advisors, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DIRECT INVESTMENT PARTNERS AG,

Plaintiff, 07 Civ. 3310 (LLS) (RLE)

- against - FILED VIA ECF

CERBERUS GLOBAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, 

CERBERUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., 

CERBERUS PARTNERS, L.P. and CERBERUS 

GLOBAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Defendants.

I, LAWRENCE M. ROLNICK, of full age, hereby certify as follows:

On February 29, 2008, I caused copies of:

1. Defendant Cerberus Global Investments, LLC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses 

and Jury Demand; and

2. this Certificate of Service

to be electronically filed via the Court’s ECF service and served on Plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel 

D. Levy, via electronic mail and Federal Express (next business day).

I hereby certify that the foregoing factual statements are true. I am aware that if 

any of the foregoing factual statements are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

Case 1:07-cv-03310-LLS Document 25-2 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 1 of 2
2

LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PC

Attorneys for Defendants Cerberus Global 

Investments, LLC, Cerberus Capital Management, 

L.P., Cerberus Partners, L.P. and Cerberus Global 

Investment Advisors, LLC

Dated: February 29, 2008 By: s/ Lawrence M. Rolnick_______

Lawrence M. Rolnick (LR-0546)

Thomas E. Redburn, Jr. (TR-3902)

1251 Avenue of the Americas

18th Floor

New York, New York 10020

Tel: 212.262.6700

Fax: 212.262.7402

- and -

65 Livingston Avenue

Roseland, New Jersey 07068

Tel: 973.597.2500

Fax: 973.597.2400

Case 1:07-cv-03310-LLS Document 25-2 Filed 02/29/2008 Page 2 of 2