alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 81 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10188]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of a 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Special Emphasis 
Panel (SEP) meeting:

    Name of SEP: Environmental Genetics.
    Date: May 6-8, 1996.
    Time: 8:00 p.m.
    Place: Omni Netherland Plaza Hotel, Cincinnati, Ohio.
    Contact Person: Dr. Carol Shreffler, National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences, P.O. Box 12233, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27709, (919) 541-1445.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and the discussions could reveal confidential trade 
secrets or commercial property such as patentable material and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to this 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the grant review and funding cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs Nos. 93.113, 
Biological Response to Environmental Agents; 93.114, Applied 
Toxicological Research and Testing; 93.115, Biometry and Risk 
Estimation; 93.894, Resource and Manpower Development, National 
Institutes of Health)

    Dated: April 19, 1996.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 96-10188 Filed 4-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 9.4

[LOGO of Deloitte]
                                                       Deloitte Accountants B.V.
                                                       Oostmaaslaan 71
                                                       3063 AN Rotterdam
                                                       P.O. Box 4506
                                                       3006 AM Rotterdam
                                                       Netherlands

                                                       Tel: +31(10)8801400
                                                       Fax: +31(10)8801616
                                                       www.deloitte.nl

To the Board of Directors of
Stolt Offshore SA
1st Floor - Dolphin House
Windmill Road
Sunbury-on-Thames
Middlese TW16 &HT
United Kingdom

Date                     From                     Our reference
August 12, 2005          D.A. Sonneveldt          Oml/3100063588/le9999/
                                                  LvdS
                                                  Your reference
Subject                                           -


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Stolt Offshore S.A. (a Luxembourg company) and its subsidiaries' (the "Company")
on Form S-8, File Nos. 33-85168, 333-09292, 333-74321, 333-124983 and 333-124997
and on Form F-3 and Form F-3/A, File No. 333-86288 of our report dated August
12, 2005 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an
explanatory paragraph relating to differences between International Financial
Reporting Standards and accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America) on the financial statements of Seaway Heavy Lifting Limited
as of and for the year ended December 31, 2004, appearing in Amendment No. 2 on
Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended November 30, 2004.

                         /s/ Deloitte Accountants B.V.
Amendment to Spansion Inc. 2010 Equity Incentive Award Plan



 Exhibit 10.2 

AMENDMENT 

TO SPANSION INC. 

2010 EQUITY INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN 

Pursuant to the authority reserved to the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Spansion Inc., a corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Delaware (the “Company”), under Section 14.1 of the Company’s 2010 Equity Incentive Award Plan (the “Plan”), the Board hereby amends the Plan as follows: 

1. Section 3.1(a) of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

“(a) Subject to Section 14.2 and Section 3.1(b) the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock which may be issued or
transferred pursuant to Awards under the Plan is the sum of (i) 6,580,240 (provided, that subject to Section 14.2 and, with respect to Full Value Awards that terminate, expire or lapse or for which shares of Common Stock are tendered or
withheld, Section 3.1(b) the aggregate number of shares of Common stock which may be issued or transferred pursuant to Full Value Awards under this Section 3.1(a)(i) is 3,290,120) and (ii) an annual increase on the first day of each
year beginning in 2011 and ending in 2015, equal to the least of (A) seven million (7,000,000) shares; (B) a percentage of the shares of Common Stock outstanding (on an as converted basis) on the last day of the immediately preceding
fiscal year as follows: 7% for the increase made January 1, 2011, 6% for the increase made January 1, 2012, 4.5% for the increase made January 1, 2013 and 3.5% for the increases made thereafter; and (C) such smaller number as may
be determined by the Board prior to the first day of such year. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no more than 6,580,240 shares of Common Stock may be issued upon the exercise of Incentive Stock Options.” 

* * * * 

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 







 I hereby certify that the foregoing Amendment to the Plan was duly adopted by the
Company’s Board effective as of May 10, 2010. 
 Executed on this
14th day of May, 2010. 

 

	
	 /s/ Randy W. Furr

	Randy W. Furr
	Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.02




                               CONSENT OF KPMG LLP



The Board of Directors
The 3DO Company:

         We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-71620, 33-80872,  33-84250,  33-84248,  33-96560, 33-96562,  333-20877,
333-42739,  333-42737,  333-66799,  333-66801  and 33-52004) on Form S-8 and the
registration  statement  (No.  333-80309)  on Form S-3 of The 3DO Company of our
report dated May 3, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of The 3DO
Company  and  subsidiaries  as of March  31,  1999  and  2000,  and the  related
consolidated statements of operations,  stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the  two-year  period  ended March 31,  2000,  which report
appears in the March 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of The 3DO Company.

                                  /s/ KPMG LLP


Mountain View, California
June 28, 2001
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50998 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TERRY HAYES ESTES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-03-CR-39-2

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Terry Hayes Estes pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to the manufacture of methamphetamine, and he was sentenced to 235 months’ imprisonment, three years’ supervised release, a $1,000 fine, and a $100 special assessment. Estes argues on appeal that he was improperly sentenced because the district court erred in calculating the amount of methamphetamine involved. Estes’s arguments concern the amountNo. 03-50998 -2- of methamphetamine contained in items seized at his home and at the home of Robert Melton. However, the presentence report (“PSR”), which was adopted by the district court, based Estes’s sentence on evidence of Estes’s production of 3.18 kilograms of methamphetamine during the prior seven months, rather than the amount of methamphetamine seized at the two residences. Because Estes has failed to brief the issue whether the use of the 3.18 kilograms in determining his sentence was accurate, the issue is deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Furthermore, to the extent that Estes does argue that he was not responsible for the 3.18 kilograms of methamphetamine attributed to him, the district court did not clearly err in relying on information contained in the PSR because Estes did not meet his burden of proving that the information was “materially untrue, inaccurate or unreliable.” See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3; United States v. Vital , 68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Rogers , 1 F.3d 341, 344 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7059

Gatekeeper Systems, 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 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 18441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9035]



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


Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Time and Date: 11:00 a.m., Monday, April 17, 1995.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, C Street 
entrance between 20th and 21st Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:

    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal 
Reserve System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced 
meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to 
the Board; (202) 452-3204. You may call (202) 452-3207, beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before this meeting, for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting.

    Dated: April 7, 1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-9035 Filed 4-7-95; 2:57 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nelson Rodriguez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (C. Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), rendered November 17, 1983, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]) and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 10 to 20 years, unanimously affirmed.

On June 10, 1982, defendant’s companion, who went by the street name of "Kojak”, provoked a fight with the deceased, 14-year-old Ernest Green, outside of the latter’s school, Junior High School 123 in the Bronx. When Green appeared to be gaining the upper hand, defendant suddenly ran up behind him and hit him on the right side of the head with a set of brass knuckles. Defendant and Kojak then fled down the block, "slapping five”, as the deceased fell to the ground, striking his head on a manhole cover.

Ernest Green died after a 19-day hospitalization. An autopsy revealed a skull fracture, severe brain damage on the right side of the brain, brain deterioration, and pneumonia. Expert testimony established that the head injuries were consistent with being struck with brass knuckles, and the *202testimony of three eyewitnesses identified defendant as the person who had struck Green with such a weapon. The official cause of death was head injury.

On appeal, defendant argues, *inter alia,*that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel purportedly did not develop alleged inconsistencies in police reports. We have examined this record and conclude that this claim is without merit. Minor deficiencies and disagreement in retrospect over failed trial strategy, particularly in the face of overwhelming evidence, do not constitute ineffective assistance. *(See, People v Benn,*68 NY2d 941, 942.) Nor can it be said that trial counsel did not provide "meaningful representation”. *(People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147.)

Defendant also raises arguments with respect to the prosecution’s use of brass knuckles for demonstration purposes, and claimed improprieties during the prosecutor’s summation. Neither of these matters was preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]) and we decline to reach them in the interest of justice. Indeed, in cross-examination, defense counsel asked the prosecution witness to again demonstrate the use of brass knuckles. Similarly, no objections were made during the prosecutor’s summation.

Finally, defendant argues that the trial court did not allow him sufficient time to produce an alibi witness. The record fails to support any such contention. During pretrial proceedings, defense counsel, who had previously been permitted to serve a late alibi notice, stated that he could not find the witness. He subsequently rested at trial without any further reference to his alibi defense. Concur—Ross, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carl Siragusa, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered October 13, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Rubin, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Elite
Cosmetics, Inc. for the quarter ending July 31, 2005, I, Glen Landry, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Elite Cosmetics, Inc. hereby
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.   Such Quarterly Report on amended Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending
          July 31, 2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the quarter ending July 31, 2005, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Elite
          Cosmetics, Inc.


Dated:  October 18, 2005


ELITE COSMETICS, INC.

By: /s/ Glen Landry
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer

                                       13
#### Edward A. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 46787.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 27, 1993.

Laura G. Martin, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and BERREY and SMART, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Defendant appeals from the denial of a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, after an evidentiary hearing.

The denial of post-conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Desimund STAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 50497.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 27, 1995.

Gary Brotherton, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and BERREY and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Desimund Star appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion to set aside his conviction of first degree tampering. He complains that the court did not determine whether the attorney had abandoned him before allowing the attorney to waive an evidentiary hearing and to rely on Star’s *pro se*motion. We find no merit in his claim. Because we do not discern any jurisprudential value in publishing an opinion, we issue this summary order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5470

SGRE, 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 concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

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
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 81 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18310-18311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10130]



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

[[Page 18311]]


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[WI68-01-7294b; FRL-5461-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Wisconsin; 
Industrial Adhesives SIP Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve a revision to the Wisconsin State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone that was submitted on December 11, 
1995 and later supplemented on January 12, 1996. This revision consists 
of a volatile organic compound (VOC) regulation to control emissions 
from industrial adhesives operations in ozone nonattainment areas 
classified as moderate or worse. In the final rules of this Federal 
Register, the EPA is approving this action as a direct final without 
prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and 
anticipates no adverse comments. If no adverse comments are received in 
response to that direct final rule, no further activity is contemplated 
in relation to this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, 
the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments 
received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this 
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on 
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this document 
should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received by May 28, 
1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. EPA, 
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the proposed SIP revision and EPA's analysis are 
available for inspection at the U.S. EPA, Region 5, Air and Radiation 
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (Please 
telephone Douglas Aburano at (312) 353-6960 before visiting the Region 
5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Aburano, Environmental 
Engineer, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
U.S. EPA , Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6960.

    Authority: 42 U.S. C. 7401-7671q.
    Dated: April 5, 1996.

Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-10130 Filed 4-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certificationof the Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As AdoptedPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of WMG Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edgar Bronfman, Jr., ChiefExecutive Officer of WMG Acquisition Corp., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| Dated: May 16, 2005 | /s/ Edgar Bronfman, Jr. |
|---------------------|-------------------------|
|                | Edgar Bronfman, Jr.     |
|                | Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----