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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Wednesday, January 28, 2015.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or (214) 413-6523.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Wednesday, January 28, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. For more information please contact Ms. Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or 214-413-6523, or write TAP Office 1114 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75242-1021, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to the IRS and other TAP related topics. Public input is welcomed.

Dated: December 3, 2014.

Otis Simpson,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2014-28854 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Exhibit 21


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT*



                                                  State or Other Jurisdiction of
Name of Subsidiary                                Incorporation or Organization
------------------                                ------------------------------
Moore Products Co. (Canada) Inc.                            Canada


Moore Products Co. (U.K.) Limited                           England


Moore Products Co. B.V.                                     Netherlands


Moore Products Co. (Italia) S.r.l.                          Italy


Moore Products Co. (Australia) Pty. Ltd.                    Australia


Moore Products Co (S) Pte Ltd                               Singapore


Moore Products de Mexico S.A. de C.V.                       Mexico


     *The names of certain subsidiaries are omitted pursuant to Item
601(b)(21)(ii) of Regulation S-K.

                                       47
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,326
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,503
<ALLOWANCES>                                       160
<INVENTORY>                                      9,291
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,412
<PP&E>                                          14,121
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,439
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,972
<BONDS>                                          5,105
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            77
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,541
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,451
<SALES>                                         15,876
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,876
<CGS>                                            9,773
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,773
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,053
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    781
<INCOME-TAX>                                       237
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                544
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       544
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
        

</TABLE>
[Exhibit 32.2]

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Annual Report of BF Acquisition Group
IV,  Inc.  (the "Company") on  Form 10-KSB for the period  ending
April  30,  2001  as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Colucci,
Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of
2002, that:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements  of
Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act  of  1934;
and
          (2)  The  information contained in  the  Report  fairly
presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition  and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: June 16, 2004

                                 /s/ William Colucci
                                 -------------------------------
                                 William Colucci, Treasurer
                                 BF Acquisition Group II, Inc.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 4832** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. SAID ASMAR , Defendant

– Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Greenville
. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. ( 4:09

- cr - 00028

- H

- 1 )

Submitted : February 24, 2010 Decided: March 25 , 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un published per curiam opi nion
. Jeffrey Michael Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Said Asmar pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to illegal structuring of financial transactions, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3) and (d) (2006), and was sentenced to sixty

- three months in prison. The judgment was imposed on Aug ust 11, 2009 ; however, Asmar did not file a notice of appeal until September 3, 2009. After Asmar filed his appellate brief with this court, the Government filed a motion to dismiss, arguing Asmar had waived his right to appeal in the plea agreement and a lso that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. In his opposition to the motion, Asmar argues in relevant part that although his notice of appeal was filed outside the prescribed ten

- day period, he had requested that the district court grant him an ex tension to file his notice of appeal. He asks this court to remand the case for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to rule on his motion for extension of time. Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4), “the district court may

– before or after th e time has expired, with or without motion and notice

– extend the time to file a notice of appeal for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed” by Rule 4(b) for filing the notice. It is clear from the record tha t Asmar filed his notice of appeal within the applicable period under Rule 4(b)(4). T he district3 court has not addressed Asmar’s request or made a determination as to whether he has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court so it can determine whether Asmar has made the requisite showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Following this limited remand, the record as supplemented will be returned to this court. We defer ruling on the Government’s motion to dismiss pending the limited remand.
REMAND ED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RAMON GARZA, JR., )

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

)

)

Petitioner,

vs. Civil Action No. 12-00033-CG

 Criminal No. 07-00349-CG-C

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Respondent.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of 

the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 224), Petitioner Ramon Garza, Jr.’s (“Garza”) 

objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 231), and the United 

States’ response (Doc. 238). The Magistrate Judge recommended that Garza’s 

motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2255 (Doc. 201) be denied. (Doc. 224). After due and proper consideration of 

all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issue raised, and a de novo

determination of those portions of the recommendation to which objection is 

made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court, with the 

following additional discussion.

DISCUSSION

Garza’s objection fails to raise any issue not previously addressed in 

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Rather, Garza merely 

Case 1:07-cr-00349-CG-N Document 239 Filed 10/04/13 Page 1 of 2
2

rehashes and expands upon previously considered and rejected arguments in 

connection with his § 2255 claims.1 The Court has considered Garza’s 

arguments, and reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge. The court finds that the Magistrate Judge properly denied all § 2255 

claims raised by Garza. The Magistrate Judge also properly rejected Garza’s 

request for an evidentiary hearing.

CONCLUSION

It is ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by 

Ramon Garza, Jr. (Doc. 201) is here by DENIED. The court further finds 

that Garza is not entitled to issuance of a Certificate of Appealability, and, 

therefore, is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.

DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of October, 2013

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1 Basically, Garza’s objection reasserts the following arguments: (1) that his trial 

counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to suppress evidence from 

the New York seizure, object to law enforcement officers’ testimony as a violation of 

the Confrontation Clause, and object to the impermissible bolstering of witness 

Alvin Knox by FBI Special Agent Kroona; (2) that his appellate counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) that counsel’s failure to object to evidentiary 

errors “cumulatively denied Petitioner of Due Process.” See Doc. 231. The 

Magistrate Judge fully addressed these arguments in her well reasoned Report and 

Recommendation. There is no need to repeat that analysis here.

Case 1:07-cr-00349-CG-N Document 239 Filed 10/04/13 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.26


                                                          [NEW FOCUS LETTERHEAD]

Amendment to Memorandum of Agreement

This agreement is dated and effective as of January 1, 2001, by and between
Alcatel USA Sourcing, L.P. ("Buyer"), having a place of business at 1000 Coit
Road, Plano, Texas 75075 and New Focus, Inc. ("Seller"), having its principle
place of business at 5215 Hellyer Ave., San Jose, California 95138.

Except as set forth in this agreement, as described below, everything remains
the same.

o    New Focus Part Number: [*]

o    Alcatel Part Number: [*]

o    Pricing: [*] USD for deliveries through December 31, 2001

o    Buyer commits to purchase at least [*] percent of Buyer's total
demand, equating to approximately [*] pieces.


/s/ DAVE STARK                             /s/ PETER HANSEN
---------------------------------          ---------------------------------
Dave Stark                                 Peter Hansen
Director of Procurement                    VP Sales
Alcatel USA Sourcing, L.P.                 New Focus, Inc.


/s/ KIMBERLY HERALD                        /s/ BRIDGIT HANSHAW
---------------------------------          ---------------------------------
Kimberly Herald                            Bridgit Hanshaw
Purchasing                                 Sales Account Manager
Alcatel USA Sourcing, L.P.                 New Focus, Inc.


[*] Certain information on this page has been omitted and filed separately with
    the Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to
    the omitted portions.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Forms S-8 No. 333-41542 and No. 333-72036) pertaining to the 1999
Equity Participation Plan of Golden Telecom, Inc. and in the Post Effective
Amendment No. 1 (Form S-3 No. 333-39260) to Registration Statement on Form S-1
and related Prospectus of Golden Telecom, Inc. of our report dated March 5,
2002, with respect to the financial statements and schedule of EDN Sovintel LLC,
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Golden Telecom, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2001.


/s/ Ernst & Young (CIS) Limited

Moscow, Russia
25 March 2002
#### Laura THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KOSAIR CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-5186.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 16, 2001.

Before KENNEDY, DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges, McKEAGUE,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable David W. McKeague, United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-Appellant Laura Thompson appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Kosair Children’s Hospital on plaintiffs claims of workplace discrimination and retaliation, constructive discharge and disability discrimination.

Having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, the arguments of counsel and the applicable law, we hold that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant and dismissed plaintiffs claims.1

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

1

. Plaintiff-appellant raised an issue on appeal as to the appropriate version of a Kentucky statute applicable here. We acknowledge the 1996 modification to K.R.S. § 337.310, but we conclude that the modification has no effect on the outcome of this case.
#### Uriah Hendricks *et al.*exr’s, &c. plaintiffs and respondents, *vs.*Josiah Carpenter, *et al.*defendants and appellants.

1. A trial by jury is not waived by the mere failure of one of the parties to appear on the trial, under section 266 of the Code, subd. 1.

2. That section provides for a *waiver-,*which does not enforce a right, but implies a.voluntary relinquishment of one, and by all the parties, not by any *one*alone, unless the other seeks to avail himself of it. Neither party is bound to accept any apparent waiver by the other, by his failing to appear on the trial.

(Before Robertson, Ch. J., and Barbour and McCunn, JJ.)

Heard May 12, 1865;

decided December 30, 1865.

Appeal from an order made at a special term. *(See*2 *Bob.*625, *S. 0.)*

*S. Sanxay,*for the defendant Carpenter, appellant.

*J. Pyne,*for the plaintiffs, respondents.

By the Court,

Robertson, Ch. J.

The only point urged on this appeal is that a trial by jury is waived by the failure of either party to appear on the trial, by the 1st subdivison of section 266 of the Code, and therefore the assessment of the damages by a jury in this case, against the defendant Carpenter, was irregular. Unfortunately for this position, the language of that section is too clear for cavil. It provides for a *waiver,*which implies a voluntary relinquishment of a right, not the enforcement of one ; and' by the *several*parties, not by the act of any one, unless the other seeks to avail himself of it. The plaintiffs were not bound to accept the defendants’ waiver by his failing to appear. Indeed the exception is hardly capable of serious argument.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002         

In connection with the Annual Report of Micropac Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending November 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark King, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

 

| Date: February 16, 2010 |   |   | /s/ Mark King           |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|                         |   |   | Mark King               |   |   |
|                         |   |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |   |
No. 87-1164.

#### Terpstra *v.*Ford Motor Credit Co.

Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Timothy D. Heffner, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Foundry Networks, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15 (f)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b)  designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  (c)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (d)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 (a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.    /s/ Timothy D. Heffner  Timothy D. Heffner
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Furtado GRAY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-6323.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.

Decided May 29, 2001.

David Furtado Gray, pro se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

David Furtado Gray seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Gray,*Nos. CR-95-364-AMD; CA-99-575-AMD (D.Md. Mar. 23, 2000, Feb. 8 & 27, 2001). 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.*