alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5532]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30,523]


Xerox Corporation, Canadian, Latin American Manufacturing 
Organization, Pittsford, New York; Notice of Negative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By an application dated January 26, 1995, one of the petitioners 
requested administrative reconsideration of the subject petition for 
trade adjustment assistance, TAA. The denial notice was issued on 
January 12, 1995 and published in the Federal Register on February 10, 
1995 (60 FR 8061).
    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under 
the following circumstances:
    (1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered 
that the determination complained of was erroneous;
    (2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on 
a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
    (3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    Investigation findings show that the workers of Canadian Latin 
American Manufacturing Organization (CLAMO) of Xerox Corporation in 
Pittsford, New York do not produce an article within the meaning of the 
Trade Act. The workers instead perform engineering and support services 
for articles produced overseas.
    Only in very limited circumstances are service workers certified 
for TAA, namely, the worker separations must be caused by a reduced 
demand for their services from a parent or controlling firm or 
subdivision whose workers produce an article and who are currently 
under a certification for TAA. (Emphasis supplied). These conditions 
were not met for the CLAMO workers of Xerox in Pittsford, New York.
    The workers at the Office of Document Products in Henrietta, New 
York were certified because their services were in direct support of 
the production done at Xerox' Webster, New York plant whose workers 
were certified under petition TA-W-29,744.
    The Trade Act was not intended to provide TAA benefits to everyone 
who is in some way affected by foreign competition but only to those 
who produced an article and experienced a decline in sales or 
production and employment as a result of increased imports of like or 
directly competitive products.

Conclusion

    After review of the application and investigative findings, I 
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law 
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department 
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 22nd day of February, 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-5532 Filed 3-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3595 

To amend the Small Business Act to require the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman to create a centralized 

website for compliance guides, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 8 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 3), 2022 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mrs. SHAHEEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business 

and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to require the Small 

Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman to create a centralized website for compliance 

guides, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘One Stop Shop for 

5 Small Business Compliance Act of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CENTRALIZED WEBSITE FOR COMPLIANCE GUIDES. 

7 Section 30 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657) 

8 is amended by adding at the end the following: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3595 IS

1 ‘‘(e) CENTRALIZED WEBSITE.—Not later than 6 

2 months after the date of enactment of this subsection, the 

3 Ombudsman shall maintain a publicly available website 

4 that includes— 

5 ‘‘(1) hyperlinks to small entity compliance 

6 guides described in section 212(a)(1) of the Small 

7 Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

8 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 note); and 

9 ‘‘(2) with respect to each small entity compli10 ance guide described in paragraph (1), the contact 

11 information for an individual who can offer assist12 ance to small entities with respect to the rules that 

13 are the subject of the guide. 

14 ‘‘(f) REPORT ON AGENCY COMPLIANCE.—The Om15 budsman shall include in the annual report required under 

16 subsection (b)(2)(C) an assessment of agency compliance 

17 with the requirements of section 212 of the Small Busi18 ness Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 

19 U.S.C. 601 note) for the year covered by the annual re20 port.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Industrial Enterprises
      of
      America, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to
      such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
      the period ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended and that the information contained in this report fairly presents,
      in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the
      Company as of, and for, the period presented in this report.





Date:  **May
      21, 2007**


By:   /s/
      John D. Mazzuto


John
      D. Mazzuto


Chief
      Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer







The
      foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350 and is not being filed as part of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
      or
      as a separate disclosure document.
`

NUMBER 13-13-00251-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY

AND GOODYEAR-DUNLOP TIRES NORTH AMERICA, LTD.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

On May 13, 2013, relators, the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and 

Goodyear-Dunlop Tires North America, Ltd., filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

contending that the Honorable Jack Marr, presiding judge of the 24th Judicial District 

Court of Calhoun County, Texas, abused his discretion, leaving relators without an 

adequate appellate remedy, by rendering certain discovery orders on March 28, 2013. 

Relators also filed a motion for temporary relief in which they asked this Court to impose 

a stay on the underlying proceedings until such time as we may fully consider the 
2

petition for writ of mandamus. On May 14, 2013, we granted relators’ motion for 

temporary relief and ordered the real parties in interest to file any response to the

petition for writ of mandamus. Responses were filed on May 29 and May 30, 2013.

Having reviewed relators’ petition for writ of mandamus, the responses filed 

thereto, and the record documents provided by the parties, this Court is of the opinion 

that relators have not shown themselves entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, we 

hereby DENY relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and LIFT the previously-imposed 

stay on trial court proceedings.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

26th day of July, 2013.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7782

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RANDALL EARL ROBINSON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:16-cr-00324-NCT-1)

Submitted: May 24, 2021 Decided: June 16, 2021

Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, Acting 

United States Attorney, John M. Alsup, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Randall Earl Robinson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step 

Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. After reviewing the 

record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Robinson’s motion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating 

standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

United States v. Robinson, No. 1:16-cr-00324-NCT-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 18, 2020). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Ruminant Diseases and Immunology Research: Ames, IA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Ames, Iowa National Animal Disease Center Ruminant Diseases and Immunology Research Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Research Projects Subjects of Investigation at this LocationEach ARS research project has related subjects of investigation.  Listed below are the subjects of investigation currently conducted at this location.
Clicking on a subject of investigation will list the research projects within that  subject of investigation.Subjects of Investigation
                            Beef cattle, live animal
                                Dairy cattle, live animal


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-1579

Illinois Tool Works: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Under Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002 / 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 / SEC Rule 13a-14(b)

Thomas L.
Tullie hereby certifies that:

1. He is the chief executive officer of Path 1 Network Technologies Inc.

2. The Form 10-Q report of Path 1 Network Technologies Inc. that this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

3. The information contained in the Form 10-Q report of Path 1 Network Technologies Inc. that this
certification accompanies fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Path 1 Network Technologies Inc.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Dated: August 21, 2006               
|                                     
|/s/    Thomas L. Tullie              
|Thomas L. Tullie                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit No. 23

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos.
333-66070, 333-44868, 333-107909, 333-107908, 333-47407, 333-64643, 33-67288 and 33-48500) of United
Retail Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries (the Company) of our reports dated
February 20, 2004, except for Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, as to which
the date is February 15, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule, which appear in this Form 10-K/A.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLPNew York, New YorkFebruary 16, 2005
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS WEBSTER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

NATALIE HASKINS, Director, Haskins 

House State Wide Transitional Re-Entry 

Program, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

No. 22-15545 

D.C. No. 1:18-cv-01640-BAM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 3, 2023**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Thomas Webster, a civil detainee of the California Department of State 

Hospitals, appeals pro se from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Natalie Haskins alleging constitutionally 

* 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

NOV 3 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

inadequate medical care. We affirm.

To show a constitutional violation, Webster must demonstrate that Haskins

acted with “objective deliberate indifference.” Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 

F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2018). Webster contends that Haskins’s actions 

resulted in a delay in the delivery of his pramipexole prescription for restless leg 

syndrome and sleep aid, thus causing him injury. The district court properly 

granted summary judgment to Haskins because Webster failed to establish that 

Haskins acted with deliberate indifference or that his injury was a reasonably 

foreseeable result of any delay in the receipt of this prescription. Russell v. 

Lumitap, 31 F.4th 729, 739 (9th Cir. 2022) (explaining the objective deliberate 

indifference standard).

Following the district court’s screening of his complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Webster elected to proceed only against Haskins for alleged 

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment for inadequate medical care, and he 

voluntarily dismissed all other defendants and all other claims. Accordingly, we 

decline to consider Webster’s waived claims against other persons concerning 

other conditions of his confinement. Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 

(9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (dismissed claims that are not repled are waived).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Webster’s motion 

to appoint an expert witness on his behalf because Webster must bear his own
3 

witness and discovery costs. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 

1989) (expenditure of public funds on indigent litigants’ discovery fees not 

authorized by Congress).

Webster’s motion for leave to declare fraud on the court and relief from 

judgment is denied.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Greg Petersen, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ActivantSolutions Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 17, 2004       /s/ GREG PETERSEN   Greg Petersen Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**






**CEO
      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**






**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**






**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**






In
      connection with Form 10-Q of POZEN Inc. (the “Company”), as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, John R. Plachetka, 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,
      to
      my knowledge:











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:
                November 3, 2006
            
            /s/
                John R. PlachetkaJohn
                R. Plachetka, Pharm.D.Chief
                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 the Company and will be retained by the
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.
#### George W. Beach, Appellant, v. Ann Steele, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.