alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-62,668] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 11, 2008 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Conrad Forest Products, North Bend, Oregon. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC this 29th day of January 2008. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E8-2232 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
**
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350 

In connection with the Annual Report of Avita Medical Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended June 30, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy Rooney, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that, to my knowledge: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 

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

 

/s/ Timothy Rooney
Timothy RooneyChief Financial Officer
Date: October 31, 2019 
**
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-42-01-SM

Thomas Lavery

O R D E R

Defendant Lavery’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 29). Trial has been rescheduled for the July 2007

trial period. Defendant Lavery’s shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than May 1, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Change of Plea: May 17, 2007 at 10:00 a.m.

Jury Selection: July 10, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00042-SM Document 30 Filed 04/23/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

April 23, 2007

cc: Lawrence Vogelman, Esq.

Mark Irish, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00042-SM Document 30 Filed 04/23/07 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER08-1437-001] 

Take notice that on September 11, 2008, Polytop Corporation filed an amendment to its August 22, 2008 notice of cancellation filing. 

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding. 

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov.*                     Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                 

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov,*                     using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 2, 2008.                 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E8-22273 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




September 2001


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: June 30, 2008
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Charles JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-10537.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 31, 2003.

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

*314PER CURIAM.*

Kenneth Charles Johnson appeals his conviction for interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952(a)(3) & (2). Johnson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence upon which is conviction is based. The Government’s responsive arguments rely on exhibits that were withdrawn from the record.

We remand the case to the district court for the limited purpose of supplementing the record on appeal with exhibits that are relevant to appeal issues. The district court may use whatever means it deems appropriate to ensure that the record is properly supplemented, and any issues that arise regarding proper supplementation should be determined by the district court. Once the record is supplemented, the district court clerk should return the record, as supplemented, to this court. The parties should be allowed thirty days from the filing of the supplemental appellate record for filing supplemental briefs that address the arguments set forth in their original briefs with reference to the supplemental record, at their option. *See, e.g., United States v. Selva,*546 F.2d 1173, 1174 (5th Cir.1977).

REMANDED for the limited purpose of supplementing the record.

*

 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 DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jai Taal

v. Civil No. 05-cv-082-PB

Hannaford Brothers

O R D E R

 Plaintiff moves to compel production of documents and to

compel the depositions of Hodge, Toner and Anderson. Contrary to

the local rules the specific document requests at issue (if any)

are not attached. 

1. The gist of the first dispute is that plaintiff

directed production to a post office box and defense counsel

responded by offering examination and copying at his office. 

Plaintiff says she does not want to go review the documents but

needs copies “right away.” Fine. Defendant is to copy all

documents produced, submit a bill for the copies (at reasonable

commercial prices) to plaintiff and forward the documents upon

payment. 

2. Plaintiff seeks to depose Hodge, Toner and Anderson. 

Defendant objects that Hodge is the CEO, knows little and is

being harassed. The other two are in-house lawyers. The problem

Case 1:05-cv-00082-PB Document 37 Filed 10/19/05 Page 1 of 2
1This order is not a license for plaintiff to abuse or

harass witnesses nor is it a determination of any privilege

claims. 

2

with defendant’s position is that all three were listed on its

Rule 26(a) disclosure. They are fair game and once listed are

subject to deposition. Defendant must produce each of them.1 

The motion (document no. 34) is granted as set forth. The

motion to strike (document no. 36) is denied. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: October 19, 2005

cc: Jai Taal, pro se

 William B. Pribis, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00082-PB Document 37 Filed 10/19/05 Page 2 of 2
3.12 U.S. RESERVE ASSETS

Millions of dollars, end of period

Asset 2002 2003 2004

2005

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept.p

1 Total ................................. 79,006 85,938 86,824 80,168 78,942 79,526 77,742 76,594 74,620 72,243 71,273

2 Gold stock1 ............................ 11,043 11,043 11,045 11,042 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041 11,041

3 Special drawing rights2,3 ................. 12,166 12,638 13,582 11,727 11,564 11,610 11,385 11,243 11,206 8,304 8,245

4 Reserve position in International Monetary Fund2 ............................ 21,979 22,535 19,479 15,336 15,276 15,422 15,406 15,274 13,438 13,336 13,245

5 Foreign currencies4 ..................... 33,818 39,722 42,718 42,063 41,061 41,452 39,910 39,036 38,935 39,563 38,742

Note: The data presented in this table are available in the monthly statistical release ‘‘U.S.

Reserve Assets; Foreign Official Assets Held at Federal Reserve Banks,’’ on the Board’s

website at www. federalreserve.gov/releases.

1. Gold held ‘‘under earmark’’ at Federal Reserve Banks for foreign and international

accounts is not included in the gold stock of the United States; see table 3.13, line 3. Gold

stock is valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce.

2. Special drawing rights (SDRs) are valued according to a technique adopted by the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) in July 1974. Values are based on a weighted average of

exchange rates for the currencies of member countries. From July 1974 through December

1980, sixteen currencies were used; since January 1981, five currencies have been used. U.S.

SDR holdings and reserve positions in the IMF have also been valued on this basis since July

1974.

3. Includes allocations of SDRs by the International Monetary Fund on Jan. 1 of the year

indicated, as follows: 1970—$867 million; 1971—$717 million; 1972—$710 million; 1979—

$1,139 million; 1980—$1,152 million; 1981—$1,093 million; plus net transactions in SDRs.

4. Valued at current market exchange rates.

3.13 FOREIGN OFFICIAL ASSETS HELD AT FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS1

Millions of dollars, end of period

Asset 2002 2003 2004

2005

Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept.p

1 Deposits .............................. 136 162 80 86 139 126 105 103 83 81 96

Held in custody

2 U.S. Treasury securities2 ................. 678,106 845,080 1,041,215 1,058,929 1,062,861 1,057,109 1,065,032 1,058,972 1,070,625 1,075,098 1,056,594

3 Earmarked gold3 ....................... 9,045 8,971 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967 8,967

Note: The data presented in this table are available in the monthly statistical release ‘‘U.S.

Reserve Assets; Foreign Official Assets Held at Federal Reserve Banks,’’ on the Board’s

website at www. federalreserve.gov/releases.

1. Excludes deposits and U.S. Treasury securities held for international and regional

organizations.

2. Marketable U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds and nonmarketable U.S. Treasury

securities, in each case measured at face (not market) value.

3. Held in foreign and international accounts and valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce; not

included in the gold stock of the United States.
* 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. 03-10706 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANDRES BARBOSA-GIL, also known as Andres Barboas-Guel, also known as Andres Guel Barbosa, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:03-CR-44-ALL-L

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Andres Barbosa-Gil 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. Barbosa-Gil complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. Barbosa-Gil thus contends that his sentence should not exceed the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).No. 03-10706 -2-
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (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. Barbosa-Gil 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 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; 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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-131-01-SM

Kathleen McCarthy

O R D E R

Defendant McCarthy’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 13). Trial has been rescheduled for the March 2007 

trial period. Defendant McCarthy shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than February 5, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, her continuance shall

be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: February 26, 2007 at 1:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: March 6, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00131-SM Document 14 Filed 01/29/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

January 29, 2007 

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Don Feith, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00131-SM Document 14 Filed 01/29/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-7-01-B

Jeffrey Munroe

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the April 3, 2007 trial

in the above case. Defendant cites the need for additional time

to prepare for the resolution of this case. The government does

not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to properly prepare for trial or a negotiated disposition of the

case, the court will continue the trial from April 3, 2007 to

June 5, 2007. In agreeing to continue the trial, the court

finds pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the abovestated reasons, the ends of justice served in granting a

continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial. The March 22, 2007 final pretrial

Case 1:07-cr-00007-PB Document 9 Filed 03/14/07 Page 1 of 2
2

conference is continued until May 22, 2007 at 2:30 PM.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

Chief Judge

March 14, 2007

cc: James Gleason, Esq.

Karin Eckel, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00007-PB Document 9 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

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 meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Initial Review Group; Neuroscience of Aging Review Committee.                     

*Date:*                         October 14-15, 2008.                     

*Time:*                         4 p.m. to 4 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         Doubletree Hotel Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                     

*Contact Person:*                         William Cruce, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, National Institute on Aging, Scientific Review Office, Gateway Building 2C-212, 7201 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-402-7704,                         *crucew@nia.nih.gov*.                     

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: September 15, 2008. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. E8-22057 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-181-01-SM

John Teves

O R D E R

The Government’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 31). Trial has been rescheduled for the June 2007

trial period. Defendant Teves shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later

than March 6, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: May 21, 2007 at 11:30 a.m.

Jury Selection: June 5, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00181-SM Document 34 Filed 02/26/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

February 26, 2007

cc: Donald Kennedy, Esq.

Joseph Laplante, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00181-SM Document 34 Filed 02/26/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

David Burns

v. Case No. 06-cv-131-PB

Warden, NH State Prison

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report 

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty dated May 9, 

2012. " '[O]nly those issues fairly raised by the objections to the magistrate's report 

are subject to review in the district court and those not preserved by such objection 

are precluded on appeal.''' School Union No. 37 v. United Nat'l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 

554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting Keating v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 

848 F.2d 271, 275 (1st Cir.1988)); see also United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 

F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986) (after proper notice, failure to file a specific objection to 

magistrate's report will waive the right to appeal). Additionally, finding that the 

petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.§ 

Case 1:06-cv-00131-PB Document 50 Filed 06/07/12 Page 1 of 2
2253(c)(2); Rule 11, Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254; 

First Cir. LR 22.0.

SO ORDERED.

June 7, 2012 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: David Burns, Pro Se

Elizabeth Woodcock, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00131-PB Document 50 Filed 06/07/12 Page 2 of 2