alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 246 (Friday, December 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66576-66577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31165]



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

[[Page 66577]]



DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment 
Request

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general 
public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment 
on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 
within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning 
the Claim--Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm Taxes.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before February 20, 
1996 to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
and Firearms, Linda Barnes, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20226, (202) 927-7768.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or 
copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Wanda 
Williams Burggraff, Tax Compliance Branch, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20226, (202) 927-8220.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Claim--Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Taxes.
    OMB Number: 1512-0141.
    Form Number: ATF F 2635 (5620.8).
    Abstract: This form is used by taxpayers to show the basis for a 
credit remission and allowance of tax on a loss of taxable articles. To 
request a refund or abatement on taxes excessively or erroneously 
collected. To request a drawback of tax paid on distilled spirits used 
in the production of non-beverage products. This form is submitted 
along with supporting documents to indicate the reason a credit of 
Federal Tax should be made.
    Current Actions: There are no new changes to this information 
collection and it is being submitted for extension purposes only.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit, individuals or 
households, and not-for-profit institutions.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,000
    Estimated Time Per Respondent: one hour
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 10,000.

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: Comments submitted in response to this notice 
will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All 
comments will become a matter of public record. Written comments should 
address the accuracy of the burden estimates and ways to minimize 
burden including the use of automated collection techniques or the use 
of other forms of information technology, as well as other relevant 
aspects of the information collection request.

    Date: December 15, 1995.
John W. Magaw
Director.
[FR Doc. 95-31165 Filed 12-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEONARD MANEGENG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70932

Agency No. A095-629-993

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 5, 2011** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Leonard Manegeng, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

APR 13 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70932

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary

v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for

review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Manegeng established

changed circumstances sufficient to excuse his untimely asylum application. See

8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007)

(per curiam). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Manegeng’s asylum claim.

The record also does not compel the conclusion that Manegeng suffered past

persecution based on the discriminatory mistreatment he experienced in Indonesia. 

See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at

1059-60. In addition, even though he is a member of a disfavored group, the

record does not compel the conclusion that Manegeng established a clear

probability of persecution in Indonesia, because he has not demonstrated sufficient

individualized risk. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003);

Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need

to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence”). 

Accordingly, Manegeng’s withholding of removal claim fails.
3 08-70932

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because Manegeng failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be

tortured if returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Steven D. Jorns, Chief Executive Officer of Interstate Hotels & Resorts,Inc. certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of InterstateHotels & Resorts, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this quarterly report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this quarterly report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a–15(e) and 15d–1(e) for the registrantand 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 quarterlyreport is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisquarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this 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 likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and;
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
 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 involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Dated: August 9, 2004 /s/ Steven D. Jorns   Steven D. JornsChief Executive Officer
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Coverage of Employment | Description of Proposed Provision:      Beginning in 2010, exempt individuals with more than 180 quarters of coverage from the OASDI payroll tax. |
|------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2009 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified December 17, 2009 |
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of SAVVIS, Inc. (the Company), hereby
certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|      |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  |                                            
|----- |  | ---------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | November 5, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Gregory W. Freiberg                    
|      |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  | Gregory W. Freiberg Chief
Financial Officer



46
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ALVIN D. CLAYTON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D21-547

September 17, 2021

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit 

Court for Polk County; Donald G. Jacobsen, Judge. 

Alvin D. Clayton, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, KHOUZAM, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
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
 Livestock Behavior Research: West Lafayette, IN
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area West Lafayette, Indiana Livestock Behavior Research Research





- Pempek, Jessica
- Food Animal Production (101)

Research Project: **Location:
                            Livestock Behavior Research** Project Number: 5020-32000-014-001-S
                        
                        Project Type: Non-Assistance Cooperative Agreement Start Date: Sep 1, 2022
                        
                        End Date: Jul 30, 2024 **Objective:**
                        
                        The objective of this study is to identify novel environmental enrichments that are applicable to current commercial animal housing systems and that improve the welfare and health of pigs and chickens at various stages of life. **Approach:**
                        
                        We will develop novel environmental enrichment products to better meet the behavioral needs of swine and poultry. We will measure behavior and physiology of pigs and chickens to determine the quality of their interactions with our enrichments, thereby demonstrating positive effects on welfare. We will also monitor animal health to determine if improved welfare results in health benefits and estimate financial impacts - positive and negative - of enrichment provision.


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
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50415

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLES EUGENE SUMMERLIN,

 DefendantAppellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-99-CR-594-1

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

November 13, 2001

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Eugene Summerlin appeals his sentence following his jury-trial conviction for two

counts of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. He first challenges the district

court’s application ofthe career offender enhancement provision inU.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 to hissentence.

He argues that such application was erroneous because his previous convictions for driving while

under the influence of alcohol (“DUI”) are not “crimes of violence” as that term is defined in

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). His argument is foreclosed by this court’s holding in United States v.

DeSantiago-Gonzalez, 207 F.3d 261, 264 (5th Cir. 2000). To the extent that Summerlin asks this

court to reconsider its previous holdingsregarding the instant issue, such argument lacks merit. See
 

United States v. Ruff, 984 F.2d 635, 640 (5th Cir. 1993)(absent en banc reconsideration or a

superseding contrary decision of the Supreme Court, one panel may not overrule the decision of a

prior panel).

Summerlin also contends that the district court erred by failing to grant his request for a

downward departure because DUI is not specifically listed as a “crime of violence” in U.S.S.G.

§ 4B1.2. As the record does not indicate that the district court erroneously believed it lacked the

authority to depart downwardly, the denial ofthe downward departure is not a reviewable issue. See

United States v. Valencia-Gonzales, 172 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1999).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3882 

To require the End-User Review Committee to conduct quarterly reviews 

with respect to the inclusion of certain Russian energy entities on the 

Entity List. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 17, 2022 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the End-User Review Committee to conduct quarterly reviews with respect to the inclusion of certain 

Russian energy entities on the Entity List. 

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 ‘‘Stop Top Oil Pro5 ducers and Protect Ukraine from Tyrannical Invasions 

6 Now Act of 2022’’ or the ‘‘STOP PUTIN Act of 2022’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3882 IS

1 SEC. 2. REVIEWS RELATING TO INCLUSION OF CERTAIN 

2 RUSSIAN ENERGY ENTITIES ON THE ENTITY 

3 LIST. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 15 days after the 

5 date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days there6 after, the End-User Review Committee shall conduct a re7 view to determine if any of the following entities should 

8 be added to or removed from the Entity List: 

9 (1) Rosneft (also known as Open Joint-Stock 

10 Company Rosneft Oil Company, OAO Rosneft Oil 

11 Company, Oil Company Rosneft, OJSC Rosneft Oil 

12 Company, and Rosneft Oil Company). 

13 (2) Lukoil, OAO (also known as Lukoil, Lukoil 

14 Oil Company, Neftyanaya Kompaniya Lukoil OOO, 

15 and NK Lukoil OAO). 

16 (3) Gazprom, OAO (also known as Open Joint 

17 Stock Company Gazprom, OAO Gazprom, and 

18 Gazprom). 

19 (4) Tatneft. 

20 (5) Sovcomflot. 

21 (6) Surgutneftegas (also known as Open Joint 

22 Stock Company Surgutneftegas, Otkrytoe 

23 Aktsionernoe Obshchestvo Surgutneftegaz, 

24 Surgutneftegas OAO, Surgutneftegas OJSC, and 

25 Surgutneftegaz OAO). 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3882 IS

1 (7) Any entity that is owned or controlled by, 

2 or is a successor to, an entity specified in para3 graphs (1) through (6). 

4 (b) CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR RE5 MOVAL.—An entity described in subsection (a) may be re6 moved from the Entity List only by an Act of Congress. 

7 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

8 (1) END-USER REVIEW COMMITTEE.—The term 

9 ‘‘End-User Review Committee’’ means the com10 mittee established under Supplement No. 5 to part 

11 744 of title 15, Code of Federal Regulations. 

12 (2) ENTITY LIST.—The term ‘‘Entity List’’ 

13 means the list maintained by the Bureau of Industry 

14 and Security and set forth in Supplement No. 4 to 

15 part 744 of title 15, Code of Federal Regulations. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3966 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3966

 To amend the Securities Act of 1933 to define secondary offerings of 
Regulation A tier 2 securities as covered securities for purposes of an 
        exemption from State regulation, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 30, 2022

   Mr. Moran introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Securities Act of 1933 to define secondary offerings of 
Regulation A tier 2 securities as covered securities for purposes of an 
        exemption from State regulation, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Facilitating Main Street Offerings 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM STATE REGULATION OF SECURITIES.

    Section 18(b)(4)(A) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 
77r(b)(4)(A)) is amended by inserting ``or pursuant to all disclosure 
obligations of section 3(b)(2) of this Act and any regulations issued 
under that section'' before the semicolon.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



1.   Cimnet Systems, Inc., an Illinois corporation

2.   CSI-1, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company

3.   CSI-2, Inc., an Illinois corporation

4.   CC-1, C.V., a limited partnership under the laws of The Netherlands

5.   Cimnet Systems Asia Pacific Limited, a Hong Kong corporation

6.   Cimnet Systems Pte, Ltd., a corporation under the laws of The Federal
     Territory of Lubuan, Malaysia

7.   Cimnet Systems B.V. (f.k.a. Wesleyano B.V.), a corporation under the laws
     of The Netherlands

8.   Cimnet Informationsysteme GmbH, a German limited liability company

9.   Cimnet Systems (I) Private Limited, an India private limited company
<Page>

EXHIBIT 99.1

                      ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP QUALITY ASSURANCE

                              REPRESENTATION LETTER

April 22, 2002


To the Securities and Exchange Commission:

Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") has represented to Daw Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company') that its audit of the consolidated financial statements of the
Company and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and for the year then ended
was subject to its quality control system for the United States accounting and
auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there was appropriate
continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit and that there was
availability of national office consultation and availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Andersen to conduct the relevant portion of the audit.

Sincerely,


  /s/ Donald K. McCauley
-------------------------------
Donald K McCauley
Chief Financial Officer
Daw Technologies, Inc.









                                      -9-
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133297 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133297 

 COA: 263946 

Wayne CC: 04-009785-01

EARL RODGERS,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 30, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal to consider the videotaping issue. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

l0521 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk