alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 23 (Monday, February 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 6548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1948]



[[Page 6548]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6089]


Termination of Statutory Debarment Pursuant to Section 38(g)(4) 
of the Arms Export Control Act for Peter Appelbaum

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Department of State has 
terminated the statutory debarment against Peter Appelbaum pursuant to 
section 38(g)(4) of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 
2778).

DATES: Effective Date: January 24, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David C. Trimble, Director, Office of 
Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Directorate of Defense Trade 
Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State 
(202) 663-2807.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA and section 
127.11 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) prohibit 
the issuance of export licenses or other approvals to a person, or any 
party to the export, who has been convicted of violating the AECA and 
certain other U.S. criminal statutes enumerated at section 38(g)(1)(A) 
of the AECA and section 120.27 of the ITAR. A person convicted of 
violating the AECA is also subject to statutory debarment under section 
127.7 of the ITAR.
    In October 1999, Peter Appelbaum was convicted of violating the 
AECA (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, 1:99CR00530-
001). Based on this conviction, Peter Appelbaum was statutorily 
debarred pursuant to section 38(g)(4) of the AECA and section 127.7 of 
the ITAR and, thus, prohibited from participating directly or 
indirectly in exports of defense articles and defense services. Notice 
of debarment was published in the Federal Register (68 FR 52436, 
September 3, 2003).
    Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA permits termination of debarment after 
consultation with the other appropriate U.S. agencies and after a 
thorough review of the circumstances surrounding the conviction and a 
finding that appropriate steps have been taken to mitigate any law 
enforcement concerns. The Department of State has determined that Peter 
Appelbaum has taken appropriate steps to address the causes of the 
violations and to mitigate any law enforcement concerns. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 38(g)(4) of the AECA, the debarment against 
Peter Appelbaum is rescinded, effective January 24, 2008.

    Dated: January 24, 2008.
Stephen D. Mull,
Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, 
Department of State.
 [FR Doc. E8-1948 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-25-P
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6364 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                 Union Calendar No. 378
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6364

                          [Report No. 117-503]

 To amend the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Improvement 
Act to extend the exception to the closure of certain roads within the 
     Recreation Area for local businesses, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 10, 2022

     Mr. Cartwright (for himself, Mr. Meuser, and Mr. Fitzpatrick) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

                           September 28, 2022

  Reported from the Committee on Natural Resources; committed to the 
 Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to 
                               be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Improvement 
Act to extend the exception to the closure of certain roads within the 
     Recreation Area for local businesses, 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. USE OF CERTAIN ROADS WITHIN THE DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL 
              RECREATION AREA.

    Section 4(b) of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area 
Improvement Act (Public Law 109-156; 119 Stat. 2948) is amended in the 
matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``Until'' and all that 
follows through ``subsection (a)'' and inserting ``Until September 30, 
2026, subsection (a)''.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 378

117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6364

                          [Report No. 117-503]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To amend the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Improvement 
Act to extend the exception to the closure of certain roads within the 
     Recreation Area for local businesses, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 28, 2022

   Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
                    Union and ordered to be printed
```
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19684]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13144-000]


Mananook Associates; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application 
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and 
Competing Applications

August 19, 2008.
    On March 19, 2008, and supplemented on August 4, 2008, Mananook 
Associates filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the 
Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Grand 
Manan Channel Project, located in the Grand Manan Channel in Washington 
County, Lubec, Maine. The project uses no dam or impoundment.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) 1,377 proposed tidal 
current generating units, with a total installed capacity of 72-
megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line, and (3) appurtenant 
facilities. The project is estimated to have an annual generation of 
158-gigawatt-hours, which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Fred J. Moore, III, Mananook Associates, 
P.O. Box 69, Perry, Maine 04667, phone 207-733-5513.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis (202) 502-8735.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13144) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-19684 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### UNITED STATES *of*America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Guadalupe RODRIGUEZ-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-50366.

D.C. No. CR-02-00295-EFS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 20, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Guadalupe Rodriguez-Sanchez appeals his conviction and 8-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952*&*960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

*952Rodriguez-Sanchez lacks standing to challenge the district court’s calculation of his sentence because he has completed serving his sentence. *See United States v. Palomba,*182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 1999); see *also United States v. Johnson,*529 U.S. 53, 54, 120 S.Ct. 1114, 146 L.Ed.2d 39 (2000) (holding that time served in excess of prison sentence is not credited to the supervised release term).

Rodriguez-Sanchez’s contention that sections 952 and 960 are facially unconstitutional in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is foreclosed by our decisions in *United States v. Varela-Rivera,*279 F.3d 1174, 1175 n. 1 (9th Cir.2002) and *United States v. Mendoza-Paz,*286 F.3d 1104,1110 (9th Cir.2002).

Rodriguez-Sanchez’s contention that the Supreme Court’s decision in *Harris v. United States,*536 U.S. 545, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002), overruled the decisions in *Varela-Rivera*and *Mendoza-Paz*is foreclosed by *United States v. Hernandez,*322 F.3d 592 (9th Cir.2003).

Rodriguez-Sanchez’s contention that the district court should have dismissed the indictment because it failed to allege mens rea as to quantity and type of controlled substance is foreclosed by *United States v. Carranza,*289 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that *Apprendi*did not change the long-established rule that the government need not prove that the defendant charged with importing qr possessing controlled substance had knowledge of the type and amount of controlled substance), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 123 S.Ct. 572, 154 L.Ed.2d 458 (2002).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit









EXHIBIT 4.7









	
		
	 
	David Lindenauer 
Executive Vice President and Treasurer
 
Citizens Financial Group, Inc.
1 Citizens Plaza
Providence, Rhode Island 02903




 
 
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, NE
Washington, DC 20549
 
February 24, 2020




	
		
	Subject:
	Citizens Financial Group, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 – File No. 001-36636






Dear Sirs:
 
Neither Citizens Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) nor any of its consolidated subsidiaries has outstanding any instrument with respect to its long-term debt, other than those filed as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, under which the total amount of securities authorized exceeds 10% of the total assets of the registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. In accordance with paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of Item 601 of Regulation S-K (17 CFR Sec. 229.601), the Company hereby agrees to furnish to the Securities and Exchange Commission, upon request, a copy of each instrument that defines the rights of holders of such long term debt not filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019.
 
 
 
Very truly yours,
 
CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.










	
		
	/s/ David Lindenauer
	 

	David Lindenauer
	 

	Executive Vice President and Treasurer
*******EXHIBIT 31***

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Nadir Walji certify that:  

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB (“Report”) of High End Ventures, Inc.;  

 

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the period presented in this Report;   

 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;   

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  

 

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):   

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: December 21, 2007  

 

/s/ Nadir Walji

Nadir Walji

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
##### 



PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES Exhibit 11 COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE
EARNINGS
(Unaudited; $ in millions except per share data) Nine Months EndedThird Quarter
    
    September 30,2004
    
    2003
    
    2004
    
    2003Income (loss) before cumulative effect of accounting change
    
    $
    292.9
    
    
    
    (0.3
    )
    
    
    705.2
    
    
    
    (38.9
    )Cumulative effect of accounting change (1)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    8.4Net income (loss)
    
    
    292.9
    
    
    
    (0.3
    )
    
    
    705.2
    
    
    
    (30.5
    )Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    (3.3
    )
    
    
    (3.3
    )
    
    
    (10.1
    )
    
    
    (10.1
    )Net income (loss) applicable to common shares
    
    $
    289.6
    
    
    
    (3.6
    )
    
    
    695.1
    
    
    
    (40.6
    )Basic:Average number of common shares outstanding
    
    
    93.8
    
    
    
    88.7
    
    
    
    92.8
    
    
    
    88.6Diluted:Average number of common shares outstanding
    
    
    93.8
    
    
    
    88.7
    
    
    
    92.8
    
    
    
    88.6Common stock equivalents  stock options
    
    
    1.1
    
    
    
    0.4
    
    
    
    1.2
    
    
    
    0.2Common stock equivalents  restricted stock
    
    
    0.3
    
    
    
    0.4
    
    
    
    0.4
    
    
    
    0.4Conversion of mandatory convertible preferred stock
    
    
    4.2
    
    
    
    4.6
    
    
    
    4.2
    
    
    
    4.9Diluted average number of common shares outstanding (2)
    
    
    99.4
    
    
    
    94.1
    
    
    
    98.6
    
    
    
    94.1Basic earnings (loss) per share:Income (loss) before cumulative effect of accounting change
    
    $
    3.09
    
    
    
    (0.04
    )
    
    
    7.49
    
    
    
    (0.55
    )Cumulative effect of accounting change (1)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    0.09Basic earnings (loss) per share
    
    $
    3.09
    
    
    
    (0.04
    )
    
    
    7.49
    
    
    
    (0.46
    )Diluted earnings (loss) per share:Income (loss) before cumulative effect of accounting change
    
    $
    2.95
    
    
    
    (0.04
    )
    
    
    7.15
    
    
    
    (0.55
    )Cumulative effect of accounting change (1)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    0.09Diluted earnings (loss) per share (2)
    
    $
    2.95
    
    
    
    (0.04
    )
    
    
    7.15
    
    
    
    (0.46
    )
  (1)
    
    The nine months ended September 30, 2003, included adoption of SFAS No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations.(2)
    
    The incremental shares associated with stock options, restricted stock and the assumed conversion of the mandatory convertible preferred shares to common shares were excluded from the diluted loss per share calculation for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2003, as their impact would have been anti-dilutive.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Octavio ATAYDE-PALOMINO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50185.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

*433Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Octavio Atayde-Palomino appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Atayde contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Atayde maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.

In *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Atayde acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres,*but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review.

*Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,*530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This court must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *Dabeit,*231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment *of the*district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

*

 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-532

In Re: JAMES M. DEBARDELEBEN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-1131-B)

Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: May 1, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James M. Debardeleben, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James DeBardeleben has filed a petition for writ of mandamus

directing the district court to rule on his motion for reconsideration, disqualify the district court judge from ruling on his

motion, and assign a new judge to decide his motion. Because the

district court has denied his motion for reconsideration, we deny

DeBardeleben's petition as moot. DeBardeleben's motion to proceed

in forma pauperis is granted. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

DARNELL THOMAS,

Appellant

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, CORRECTIONS 

OFFICER B. SHAFFER, LT. M. THOMAS, 

CAPT. BRADLEY SHEEDER, CAPT. 

HARDING, AND HEARING EXAMINER 

FRANK NUNEZ, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL 

AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES,

Appellees

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 11 EAP 2020

Appeal from Order of 

Commonwealth Court dated 

November 22, 2019 at 617 MD 

2018.

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: March 25, 2021

AND NOW, this 25th day of March, 2021, the order of the Commonwealth Court is 

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus Dion McKOY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-6617.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 21, 2003.

Marcus Dion McKoy, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Jude Darrow, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Marcus Dion McKoy seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. McKoy cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and a certificate of appealability will not issue absent a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 *285U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2) (2000). A habeas appellant meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude McKoy 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*