alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2744-2745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-685]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Research


Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee Renewal

    Pursuant to section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act and in accordance with title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
Sec. 101-6.1015, and following consultation with the Committee 
Management Secretariat,

[[Page 2745]]

General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Basic 
Energy Sciences Advisory Committee has been renewed for a two-year 
period beginning in January 1995. The Committee will provide advice to 
the Director of Energy Research on the basic energy sciences program.
    The Secretary has determined that the renewal of the Basic Energy 
Sciences Advisory Committee is essential to the conduct of the 
Department's business and in the public interest in connection with the 
performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy by law. The 
Committee will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Energy 
Organization Act (Public Law 95-91), and rules and regulations issued 
in implementation of those Acts.
    Further information regarding this advisory committee can be 
obtained from Rachel Samuel at (202) 586-3279.

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 6, 1995.
JoAnne Whitman,
Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-685 Filed 1-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-M
2. Please provide a complete and detailed description of the product of concern:

Motor overload protectors for switching or protecting electrical circuits, or for making connections to or 

in electrical circuits, for a voltage exceeding 60V (but not exceeding 1,000V).

Products between 1.7 to 2.9 inches wide have three power connection pins on top and three wire 

connection terminals on the bottom (marked T1-T2-T3). Four smaller signaling wire terminations are 

located on the front with NO terminal markings 98-97 and NC terminal markings 96-95. An amperage 

adjustment dial is also located on the front behind a protective hinged window.

Products between 4.8 to 6.9 inches wide have three bus termination pads on the top (marked L1-L2-L3)

and three bus termination pads on the bottom (marked T1-T2-T3). Four smaller signaling wire 

terminations are located on the front with NO terminal markings 98-97 and NC terminal markings 96-95. 

An amperage adjustment dial is also located on the front behind a protective hinged window.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4067

Scosche Industries, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of General Growth Properties, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Bernard Freibaum, in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (1) The 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.

                                                 /s/ BERNARD FREIBAUM
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                     Bernard Freibaum
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

March 21, 2005
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Robert L. Guarino, Ph.D., Plaintiff-Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Shebitz, Berman Cohen &amp; Delforte, PC., Defendant-Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered November 25, 2013, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and on its counterclaim in the sum of $10,475.75.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered November 25, 2013, modified to deny that portion of defendant's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim and to grant plaintiff summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim; as modified, order affirmed, without costs.</p><p>This breach of contract action, seeking to hold defendant law firm liable for services rendered by plaintiff, was properly dismissed on defendant's motion for summary judgment. The evidentiary submissions made by defendant established, prima facie, that defendant was acting as an agent for a disclosed principal, nonparty Academy at Ivy Ridge ["AIR"], and that defendant did not intend to be personally bound for the educational consulting services rendered by plaintiff to AIR (<i>see Pascual v Rustic Woods Homeowners Assn., Inc</i>., 134 AD3d 1003, 1005-1006 [2015], <i>lv dismissed in part and denied in part</i> 27 NY3d 1189 [2016]). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise any triable issue of fact.</p><p>However, summary judgment should not have been granted to defendant on the counterclaim for unjust enrichment. Although defendant claims that plaintiff was overpaid for the services rendered, defendant acknowledged that plaintiff performed consulting services for AIR, that plaintiff was paid from funds that defendant received from AIR, and that defendant was merely the "payment conduit between AIR and plaintiff." On these facts, plaintiff was not unjustly enriched at defendant's expense, because the money plaintiff received did not belong to defendant, but, rather, to AIR (<i>see Citibank, N.A. v Walker</i>, 12 AD3d 480, 481 [2004]; <i>Strong v Strong</i>, 277 AD2d 533, 534 [2000]). Thus, defendant's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim should have been denied and, upon searching the record pursuant to CPLR 3212(b), <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>summary judgment granted to plaintiff dismissing the counterclaim.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: December 28, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14982-14983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6867]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Notice of Request fpr Reclearance of an Information Collection 
for Comprehensive Medical Plans

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (title 
44, U.S. Code, chapter 35), this notice announces a request for 
reclearance of an information collection. Comprehensive Medical Plans: 
Applications to Participate in Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) 
Program and Contractor Records Retention is used by OPM to determine if 
Comprehensive Medical Plans applying for participation in the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Program meet the requirements for 
participation. The second part of this clearance covers recordkeeping 
requirements imposed on the plans that participate in the FEHB program 
for the purpose of contract auditing and monitoring.
    The total annual reporting burden is estimated to be 13,230 hours 
based on 49 applications at an average time burden of 270 hours per 
plan. The recordkeeping burden is estimated to be 300 hours. Therefore, 
the total annual reporting burden including both recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements equals 13,530 (13,230 plus 300) hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Doris R. Benz on (703) 908-
8564.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before April 
20, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--

Kenneth H. Glass, Chief, Insurance Operations Division, Retirement and 
Insurance Group, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, 
NW., Room 3415, Washington, DC 20415

and

Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information and, Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office 
[[Page 14983]] Building, NW., Room 3002, Washington, DC 20503

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION--CONTACT: Mary 
Beth Smith-Toomey, Forms Analysis & Design Section, (202) 606-4025.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Lorraine A. Green,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 95-6867 Filed 3-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
#### Lowell Steve HEDGECORTH, Employee/Appellant, v. MUELLER MACHINE & TOOL CO., Employer/Respondent, and Employers Insurance of Wausau, Insurer/Respondent.

No. 69207.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 14, 1996.

James A Bingley, St. Louis, for appellant.

Christopher T. Archer, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, claimant appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s decision denying him compensation. He contends “there was not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the award.”

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

*56The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 99.1

                          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 Forever Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 (the "Report"),
I, Brent D. Cassity, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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.


                        /s/ Brent D. Cassity
                        ----------------------------------------------------
                        Chief Executive Officer of Forever Enterprises, Inc.
                        May 15, 2003


         This certificate accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act or 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
Order entered March 5, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 13
- 01464
- CR LARRY GRACE, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F12
- 54162
- R 

### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk’s record in this appeal within TWENTY
- ONE DAYS of the date of this order.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary
Fit zsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.
/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-3478

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Troy Wayne Fletcher, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 14, 2011

Filed: October 18, 2011

___________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Troy Wayne Fletcher pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1), and failing to appear, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1). The district court sentenced him to 288 months in prison,

1

consisting of a 240-month term on the child-pornography offense and a consecutive

48-month term on the failure-to-appear offense. The court imposed a life term of

supervised release, with several special conditions.

The Honorable JimmLarry Hendren, Chief Judge, United StatesDistrictCourt

1

for the Western District of Arkansas.
Fletcher’s counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). After we reviewed the record independently

pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we denied counsel’s motion to

withdraw and directed the partiesto brief whether the district court erred in imposing

a special condition of supervised release prohibiting Fletcher from having internet

access at his residence, and from having--without prior approval by the probation

office and a justified reason--access to an internet-connected computer or other

device with internet capabilities or access to the internet from any location. After

careful review ofthe record and the arguments advanced by both parties, we conclude

that, given the particular facts of this case, the district court did not plainly err in

imposing the special condition regarding internet access. See United States v. Koch,

625 F.3d 470, 481-82 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Durham, 618 F.3d 921, 943-45

(8th Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Smith, No. 10-3579, 2011 WL 4104915, at

*3 (8th Cir. Sept. 16, 2011).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

-2-
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2648

Reelcraft Industries:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10389 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DEMETRIO VILLARREAL-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:98-CR-348-1-D

- - - - - - - - - - October 20, 1999
Before JONES, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Demetrio Villarreal-Flores has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Villarreal-Flores has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Counsel isNo. 99-10389 -2- excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
EXHIBIT 8

 

List of the Subsidiaries of M-Systems Flash DiskPioneers Ltd.  and where they are incorporated

 

 

 
| Name                                        | Country of  Organization | Ownership    |
|---------------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------|
| M-Systems, Inc.                             | U.S.                     | 100%         |
| M-Systems Asia Ltd.                         | Taiwan                   | 100%         |
| M-Systems Flash Disk Pioneers (Japan), Inc. |  

Japan            |  

100% |
| M-Systems UK Ltd.                           | United Kingdom           | 100%         |
| M-Systems China Shenzhen Ltd.               | China                    | 100%         |
| M-Systems B.V.                              | The Netherlands          | 100%         |
| Smart Caps Ltd.*                            | Israel                   | 79.95%       |
| TwinSys Ltd. **                             | Israel                   | 50.10%       |
| TwinSys Data Storage L.P. **                | Israel                   | 50.10%       |

 

**____ 1 ____**
Order entered March 21, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00853-CR

DERWIN DWIGHT MOORE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-26009-N

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On February 15, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why 

appellant’s brief had not been filed. On March 19, 2013, we received appellant’s brief, together 

with an extension motion. Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the 

February 15, 2013 order requiring findings. 

We GRANT the March 19, 2013 extension motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed as 

of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-786]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration


Environmental Impact Statement: Hawaii County, HI

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an 
environmental impact statement will be prepared for a proposed highway 
project in Hawaii County, Hawaii.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael A. Cook, Division Administrator, Federal Highway 
Administration, Box 50206, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Honolulu, Hawaii 
96850, Telephone: (808) 541-2700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA in cooperation with the Hawaii 
Department of Transportation and the County of Hawaii Department of 
Public Works will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a 
proposed widening and extension of a portion of Hawaii State Highway 
2000, Puainako Street. The proposed project will provide a highway 
connection between the Saddle Road (State Highway 200) and State 
Highway 11. The project entails (1) realignment and widening of the 
existing Puainako Street from 2 to 4 lanes; and (2) construction of a 
2-lane (future 4-lane), 4.6-mile extension of Puainako Street from 
Komohana Street, in a westerly direction, to Country Club Road in 
Kaumana.

    The purpose of this project is to improve arterial traffic flow of 
the State Highway System by providing a direct link between the 
existing Puainako Street (Highway 2000) and the Saddle Road (Highway 
200) and to alleviate congested and unsafe traffic conditions on 
Kaumana Drive. Alternatives being evaluated, include the ``no project'' 
alternative and two alternative alignments.
    Notice describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will 
be sent to appropriate Federal, State and local agencies and to private 
organizations and citizens who have expressed interest in this project. 
Interagency scoping meetings will be held as required.
    To ensure that the full range of issues relating to the proposed 
action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments 
and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments and 
questions concerning the proposed action should be directed to the FHWA 
at the address provided above.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205 
Highway Research, Planning and Construction. The regulations 
implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental 
consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this 
program.)
Michael A. Cook,
Division Administrator, Honolulu, Hawaii.
[FR Doc. 95-786 Filed 1-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-M