alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 19889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11074]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 170

[OPP-250101B; FRL-5366-2]


Exceptions to Worker Protection Standard Early Entry 
Restrictions; Limited Contact Activities; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a document in the Federal Register that proposed a 
rule change allowing early entry into pesticide-treated areas. In that 
proposal, EPA indicated that methyl parathion requires both oral and 
written notification (``double notification'') of agricultural workers 
when it is applied. Methyl parathion was mentioned incorrectly, as the 
Agency had previously determined that its acute dermal toxicity is 
Toxicity Category II, which does not require double notification. 
Moreover, a study of methyl parathion's potential for acute dermal 
irritation demonstrated that it is Toxicity Category IV and that it is 
not a skin sensitizer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua First, Office of Pesticide 
Programs (7506C), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and e-mail 
address: 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Mall #2, Rm. 1121, 
Arlington, VA, 703-305-7437, e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="98fef1eaebecb6f2f7ebf0edf9b6d8fde8f9f5f9f1f4b6fde8f9b6fff7eeb6">[email protected]</a>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of January 11, 1995 
(60 FR 2842) (FRL-4930-4), EPA issued a proposed rule to change 
allowing early entry into pesticide-treated areas under certain 
conditions (the proposal was subsequently finalized on May 3, 1995 (60 
FR 21955) (FRL-4950-4). In the January 11th proposal, EPA described 
some pesticides whose labeling requires ``double notification'' when 
those pesticides are applied. The ``double notification'' requirement 
is set by the Worker Protection Standard (40 CFR part 170). EPA is 
hereby stating that its previous indication that methyl parathion 
requires ``double notification'' was incorrect. Methyl parathion does 
not require ``double notification.''

Lists of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Labeling, Occupational safety and health, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: April 26, 1996.
Daniel M. Barolo,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 96-11074 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of The Geon Company of our report dated January 27, 2000, included in the 1999
Annual Report to the Stockholders of The Geon Company.

Our audit also included the financial statement schedule of The Geon Company
listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 33-80522) of The Geon Company and in the related prospectus, in
the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-92398) pertaining to The Geon
Retirement Savings Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-80262)
pertaining to The Geon Company Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee
Directors, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-62112) pertaining to
The Geon Company Incentive Stock Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 33-65520) pertaining to The Geon Company Retirement Plus Savings Plan, in
the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-65518) pertaining to The Geon
Company Retirement Plus Savings Plan for Wage Employees, in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-81025) pertaining to The Geon Company 1998 Interim
Stock Plan, and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-81027)
pertaining to The Geon Company 1999 Incentive Stock Plan of our report dated
January 27, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the preceding
paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of The Geon Company.


                                                   /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Cleveland, Ohio
March 23, 2000
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7624

CHARLES HARBISON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:14-cv-00687-REP)

Submitted: March 31, 2016 Decided: May 19, 2016

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Cady Kiyonaga, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. KIYONAGA, Alexandria, 

Virginia, for Appellant. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Harbison seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Harbison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 22, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-60671

Summary Calendar

 

MASOUD YADEGAR,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A78 588 417

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

Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Masoud Yadegar, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision to

deny his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The

petition is DENIED.
No. 04-60671

-2-

The BIA’s order dismissing Yadegar’s appeal expressly

adopted and affirmed the IJ’s finding that Yadegar was not a

credible witness. Although our review ordinarily is limited to

the BIA’s decision, when the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ,

this court may review the IJ’s decision. See Mikhael v. INS,

115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). Because the BIA adopted the

IJ’s credibility finding without stating additional reasons, we

review the IJ’s decision.

The IJ must determine the credibility of witnesses. Chun v.

INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). This court does not

substitute its judgment for that of the IJ or BIA with respect to

witness credibility and the ultimate factual findings based on

credibility determinations. Chun, 40 F.3d at 78. When a finding

regarding credibility is based on “a reasonable interpretation of

the record and therefore supported by substantial evidence,” it

will be upheld. Id. at 79. “[A] credibility determination may

not be overturned unless the record compels it.” Lopez De Jesus

v. INS, 312 F.3d 155, 161 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Chun, 40 F.3d

at 78)).

In addition to arguing the merits of his claims for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT, Yadegar

challenges the IJ’s finding that he was not a credible witness. 

The IJ’s credibility finding is amply supported by the record. 

See Chun, 40 F.3d at 79. The record thus does not compel a

credibility determination contrary to that of the IJ. See Lopez
No. 04-60671

-3-

De Jesus, 312 F.3d at 161. Because the credibility determination

is supported by substantial evidence, Yadegar’s petition for

review of the BIA’s order is DENIED.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5550 

To amend the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 

1991 to expand the President’s authority to deny any individual’s admission to the United States as a representative to the United Nations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2023 

Mr. OGLES (for himself and Mr. DAVIDSON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal 

Years 1990 and 1991 to expand the President’s authority to deny any individual’s admission to the United 

States as a representative to the United Nations. 

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 ‘‘Blocking the Entry 

5 of Malign Actors Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5550 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE FOREIGN RELATIONS AU2 THORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 1990 AND 

3 1991. 

4 Section 407(a)(1) of the Foreign Relations Author5 ization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 

6 101–246; 8 U.S.C. 1102 note), is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘and’’ at the end and by inserting ‘‘or’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
exv10w5






Exhibit 10.5




COPYRIGHT COLLATERAL AGREEMENT AND NOTICE




     This Copyright Collateral Agreement and Notice dated as of April 14, 2010, is between
Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business at 651 Campus Drive, St. Paul, MN 55112 (“Assignor”) and Partners for Growth III,
L.P., 180 Pacific Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94111 (“Assignee”) pursuant to a Loan and
Security Agreement dated April 14, 2010, by and between Assignor and Assignee and pursuant to
certain other loan documents referenced therein (collectively, the “Loan Documents”).



     WHEREAS, Assignor is the owner of certain copyrightable works which are the subject of United
States copyright registrations and/or copyright applications as listed on Exhibit 1 hereto
(the “Copyrights”); and



     WHEREAS, Assignee has agreed to extend certain credit to Assignor on condition that the
Assignor pledge and grant to Assignee as collateral for the Obligations (as defined in the Loan
Documents) a security interest and lien in and to the Copyrights and all proceeds thereof and all
other related claims and rights as more fully described in a certain Intellectual Property Security
Agreement (the “Security Agreement”) in favor of the Assignee dated April 14, 2010, by and between
Assignor and Assignee;



     NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, as security for the due and timely payment
and performance of the Obligations, Assignor hereby pledges and grants to Assignee a security
interest and lien in and to the Copyrights and all proceeds thereof and gives notice of such
security interest and the existence of such Security Agreement providing therefor.




	 	 	Executed as of the date first above written.





	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	Assignor:	 	 	 	Assignee:	 	 
	 
	Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.	 	 	 	PARTNERS FOR GROWTH III, L.P.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By	 	/s/ David L. Martin	 	 	 	By	 	/s/ Lorraine Nield	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 	 	Name:
	 	Lorraine Nield	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Title:
	 	Manager, Partners for Growth III, LLC Its General Partner	 	 
	By

	 	/s/ James E. Flaherty	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19268-19269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10705]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP94-777-001]


Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

April 25, 1996.
    Take notice that on April 22, 1996, Columbia Gulf Transmission 
Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission the following changes to its FERC Gas Tariff 
effective May 23, 1996.

Second Revised Volume No. 1

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 008
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 013

Original Volume No. 2

Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 1D
Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 1J
First Revised Sheet No. 489
First Revised Sheet No. 1579

    Columbia Gulf states that this filing is being made to provide for 
the cancellation in its entirety of Columbia Gulf's Rate Schedules X-41 
and X-89, which embodies separate transportation agreements between 
Columbia Gulf and Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation (Texas 
Eastern) as follows:
    Rate Schedule X-41 for transportation of natural gas agreement as 
authorized under Docket No. CP77-521 (59 FPC 2222 (1977)); and
    Rate Schedule X-89 for transportation of natural gas agreement as 
authorized under Docket No. CP77-494 (16 FERC para. 62,331 (1981)).
    Columbia Gulf states that the cancellation is being filed pursuant 
to an order issued on September 28, 1994, in Docket No. CP94-777 (68 
FERC para. 61,378 (1994)), wherein the Commission granted permission to 
abandon service under the above-referenced agreement.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and

[[Page 19269]]

Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided in Section 
154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by 
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but 
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-10705 Filed 4-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M`
**EXHIBIT
      31.1**




CERTIFICATION




I,
      Gary
      Florindo, certify that:




1. I
      have reviewed this September 30, 2007 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
      Lightspace Corporation;




2. Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
      fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
      in
      light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
      with respect to the period covered by this report;




3. Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
      condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
      for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The
      registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:




(a) 
      Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
      material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
      subsidiary, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
      during the period in which this report is being prepared;




(b) 
      Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness
      of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
      by this report based on such evaluation; and




(c) 
      Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
      quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
      affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.




5. The
      registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
      registrant’s auditors and the registrant’s board of directors:




(a) 
      All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
      of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
      adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
      report financial information; and




(b) 
      Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting.






November
      14, 2007




/s/
                Gary FlorindoGary
                FlorindoChief
                Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 86 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10970]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration


Deadline for Submission of Application for Airport Grant Funds 
Under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) for Fiscal Year 1996

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces June 30, 
1996, as the deadline for having on file with the FAA an acceptable 
application for airport grant funds under the Airport Improvement 
Program (AIP) for fiscal year 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stanley Lou, Manager, Programming 
Branch, Airports Financial Assistance Division, Office of Airport 
Planning and Programming, APP-520, on (202) 267-8809.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 47105(f) of the Codification of 
Certain U.S. Transportation Laws as Title 49, United States Code, 
Public Law No. 103-272, (July 5, 1994), provides that the sponsor of 
each airport to which entitlement funds are apportioned shall notify 
the Secretary, by such time and in a form as prescribed by the 
Secretary, of the sponsor's intent to apply for passenger and cargo 
entitlement funds. Notification of the sponsor's intent to apply during 
fiscal year 1996 for any of its entitlement funds, including those 
unused from prior years, shall be in the form of a project application 
(SF 424) submitted to the FAA field office no later than June 30, 1996.
    This notice is promulgated to expedite and prioritize grants in the 
final quarter of the fiscal year. Absent an acceptable application by 
June 30, FAA intends to defer an airport's entitlement funds until the 
next fiscal year.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., April 25, 1996.
Stan Lou,
Manager, Programming Branch.
[FR Doc. 96-10970 Filed 5-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### Harold BURKEMPER, et al., Respondents, v. Michael DIERKER, et al., Appellants.

No. 69261.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

March 12, 1996.

*294Claude C. Knight, Knight, Schoeneberg *&*Tomich, St. Charles, for appellants.

Stephen P. Ahlheim, St. Charles, for respondents.

Before SMITH, P. J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Michael and Jill Dierker, and Mark Huelskamp, appeal from the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St. Charles County, granting respondents’, the members of the Board of Governors of Hackmann Estates Homeowner’s Association individually and as the Board, motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find no error of law appears. As we further find no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**







**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





To:
      FreeStar Technology Corporation





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference on Registration Statements on Form
      S-8
      (No. 333-140374) of FreeStar Technology Corporation of our report, which
      includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the substantial doubt about the
      Company's ability to continue as a going concern, dated August 30, 2007,
      included in FreeStar Technology Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
      for
      the year ended June 30, 2007.








/s/RBSMLLP


RBSM
      LLP


Certified
      Public Accountants








New
      York,
      New York


September
      28, 2007