alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 21780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10832]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

National Agricultural Statistics Service


Notice of Intent To Suspend the Census of Agriculture Survey

AGENCY: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of suspension of data collection.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the intention of the National 
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to suspend a currently approved 
information collection, the 2007 Census of Agriculture.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph T. Reilly, Associate 
Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, (202) 720-4333.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title: 2007 Census of Agriculture.
    OMB Control Number: 0535-0226.
    Expiration Date of Approval: July 31, 2009.
    Type of Request: To suspend a currently approved information 
collection.
    Abstract: The primary objective of the National Agricultural 
Statistics Service is to prepare and issue State and national estimates 
of crop and livestock production, disposition, and prices. The 2007 
Census of Agriculture survey was conducted as a one time only survey to 
gather comprehensive agricultural information. The Census of 
Agriculture is conducted once every five years. A Paperwork Reduction 
Act packet will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for renewal in time for the 2012 Census of Agriculture. Several 
follow-on census surveys will be conducted under independent OMB 
Control Numbers. NASS will suspend this information collection (2007 
Census of Agriculture) as of May 11, 2009 due to the completion of the 
survey.
    Authority: These data were collected under authority of 7 U.S.C. 
2204g. Individually identifiable data collected under this authority 
are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985 as 
amended, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict 
confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents.
    Estimate of Burden: There will be no further public reporting 
burden for this collection of information.

    Signed at Washington, DC, April 29, 2009.
Joseph T. Reilly,
Associate Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-10832 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-20-P
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. App.), 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 of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel NIAID Resource Related Research Projects (R24).                    

*Date:*                         February 9, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications and/or proposals.                     

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Room 3F100, 5601 Fisher Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Raymond R. Schleef, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review, Program Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fisher Lane, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 240-669-5019,                         *schleefrr@niaid.nih.gov.*

                        (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology,                               ( print page 2721)                            and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)                    

Dated: January 13, 2015.

David Clary,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-00660 Filed 1-16-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00047-CR

CARLOS GONZALEZ

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 19FC-1982F

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 27, 2021
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Morrisohn, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 350]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered January 13, 2012, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3V2 years plus a period of five years of postrelease supervision. The appeal brings up for review a permanent order of protection issued at the time of sentencing.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the period of five years of postrelease supervision; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for the imposition of an appropriate period of postrelease supervision in accordance with Penal Law § 70.45 (2) (e).

Although the defendant’s contention concerning the duration of the order of protection survives his valid waiver of his right to appeal (see *People v Cedeno,*107 AD3d 734 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 1041 [2013]), the defendant failed to preserve this contention for appellate review (see *id.-,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Nieves,*2 NY3d 310, 316-318 [2004]). We decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see *People v Cedeno,*107 AD3d at 734).

As the defendant contends and the People correctly concede, the period of postrelease supervision imposed at sentencing exceeds the statutory maximum (see Penal Law § 70.45 [2] [e]). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the County Court, Orange County, for the imposition of an appropriate period of post-release supervision in accordance with Penal Law § 70.45 (2) (e). Eng, EJ., Angiolillo, Balkin and Hall, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF GUMBINER SAVETT INC.,**

**INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Axesstel, Inc. 

San Diego, California

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-115168) and Form S-8 (File No.333-127079) of our report dated March 24, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Axesstel, Inc., for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 which appear in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB forthe year ended December 31, 2005. 

/s/    Gumbiner Savett Inc. 

GUMBINER SAVETT INC. 

Santa Monica,California 

March 30, 2006
<PAGE>
                                    FORM 6-K
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                        Report of Foreign Private Issuer

                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                                  March 8, 2004
                         Commission File Number: 0-22346

                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)

                                10 TORONTO STREET
                            TORONTO, ONTARIO M5C 2B7
                                     CANADA
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
                      under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                      Form 20-F [X]         Form 40-F [ ]

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
          permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ________________

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
          permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ________________

 Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this
     Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                            Yes [ ]         No [X]

If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in
              connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ________________

<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT LIST

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Exhibit         Description
-------         -----------
<S>             <C>
99.1            Press Release, dated March 5, 2004, regarding the appointment of
                Zeifman & Company, LLP as Hollinger Inc.'s new auditor.
</TABLE>

<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date:  March 8, 2004

                                            HOLLINGER INC.

                                            By /s/ Peter G. White
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Name:  Peter G. White
                                               Title: Co-Chief Operating Officer
                                                      and Secretary
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Dedios GARCIA-GARZA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41813.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Oct. 25, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Dedios Garda-Garza (Garcia) appeals his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326*667for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation for a prior aggravated felony conviction.

Garcia argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. This challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Garcia contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Garcia properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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 of America, Appellee, v. Leonard B. HOWELL, also known as Sonny, Defendant-Appellant, Albert A. Abplanalp, Mary Germaine Cron, Ralph H. Parkes, Peter Gumaer, David R. Gunther, Defendants.

No. 08-0040-cr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 20, 2009.

Thomas P. Walsh, Assistant United States Attorney (Brenda K. Sannes, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), for Andrew T. Baxter, Acting United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, N.Y., for Appellee.

B. Alan Seidler, New York, N.Y., for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT: Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, Hon. DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges, and Hon. JANE A. RESTANI, Judge.1

1

. The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Leonard Howell appeals from his conviction imposed by the United States District Court for the *17Northern District of New York (McAvoy, «/.). Following a jury trial, Howell was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1) and 846. Howell was acquitted on one count of possessing a firearm following a felony conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and scope of the issues presented on appeal.

Howell argues on appeal that he was prejudiced at trial by the admission of inadmissible hearsay testimony by Agent Joyce, a law enforcement officer. Howell further contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney “proved” his guilt.

Howell did not object below to Agent Joyce’s testimony, and so our review is for plain error. *Johnson v. United States,*520 U.S. 461, 466-67, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997). To show plain error, “there must be (1) error, that is (2) plain, and (3) affect[s] substantial rights.” *Id.*(alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Government concedes, and we agree, that Agent Joyce’s testimony contained inadmissible hearsay and that the admission of this evidence constituted error that was manifest. We conclude, however, that admission of this evidence did not affect Howell’s substantial rights because much of the substance contained in Agent Joyce’s disputed testimony was already in the record from admissible sources. Consequently, these admissions, erroneous though they were, do not rise to the level of plain error.

With respect to Howell’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we note that this Court has generally been disinclined to entertain such claims on direct review. *See United States v. Gaskin,*364 F.3d 438, 467-68 (2d Cir.2004). In this instance, we believe the better course is for Howell to pursue this claim through a collateral attack pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We therefore dismiss this claim without prejudice to its being renewed in a timely habeas petition. *United States v. Doe,*365 F.3d 150, 152 (2d Cir.2004).

Accordingly, Howell’s appeal is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in part, and the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2320 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related Programs, 

Center for Middle Eastern-Western Dialogue Trust Fund for fiscal year 

2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related Programs, Center for Middle Eastern-Western Dialogue Trust Fund for fiscal year 2024. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 RELATED PROGRAMS, CENTER FOR MIDDLE 

5 EASTERN-WESTERN DIALOGUE TRUST FUND 

6 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Related Programs, Center for Middle EasternVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:07 Apr 19, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2320.IH H2320

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2320 IH

1 Western Dialogue Trust Fund for fiscal year 2024 may 

2 not exceed $16,700,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Daniel J. Casacci, Respondent, for an Order for the Inspection of the Books and Records of U.S. Drives, Inc., Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 420]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Eugene M. Fahey, J.), entered May 1, 2006. The order directed respondent to provide petitioner with copies of portions of its federal corporate tax returns for the years 1999 through 2004.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court. Present—Martoche, J.E, Smith, Centra and Green, JJ.
Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement - Joseph Curtin



 EXHIBIT 10.10 
 EXECUTION COPY 
 AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 Dated as of January 25, 2007 
 Reference
is made to that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (the “Original Agreement”), dated as of the Effective Date as defined therein, by and between Tube City IMS Corporation (the “Company”), a Delaware
corporation, and Joseph Curtin (the “Executive”). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Original Agreement. 
 For good and valuable consideration (including the promises set forth herein), the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, each of the
Company and Executive intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Amendment. 

  

	 	a.	The second sentence of Section 1. of the Original Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: “The number of shares of Restricted Stock
shall be equal to 16.66% of the total number of shares reserved for issuance under the Restricted Stock Plan on the Effective Date, which shall be equal to ten percent (10%) of the total number of shares of common stock of Buyer outstanding
upon the Closing, and such Restricted Stock shall be granted pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Restricted Stock Plan and a Restricted Stock Agreement (as defined in the Restricted Stock Plan).” 

  

	 	2.	Miscellaneous. Except as modified hereby, the provisions of the Original Agreement shall remain unmodified, and, subject to the amendments contained herein, the Original
Agreement is hereby confirmed as having been validly executed and delivered by each of the undersigned and as being in full force and effect. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts which together shall constitute one
instrument, shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of New York, without reference to or giving effect to any choice or conflict of laws provision or rule that would cause the application of the
domestic substantive laws of any other jurisdiction. 

 [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Amendment to the Amended and Restated Employment
Agreement to be executed and delivered as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	TUBE CITY IMS CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ Thomas E. Lippard
		 	Name: Thomas E. Lippard
		 	Title:   Vice President
		
		 	/s/ Joseph Curtin
		 	Joseph Curtin


 [Signature Page to 
 Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement]
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

JK/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS ALFREDO TREJO-BENJARANO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-72096

Agency No. A098-117-610

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Luis Alfredo Trejo-Benjarano, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily

affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for

FILED

FEB 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JK/Research 2 07-72096

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85

(9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that the harassment and

threats Trejo-Benjarano received at the hands of the gang members in El Salvador

who stole soda bottles from his company vehicle in one incident, and followed him

home and broke all of his windows in another incident, did not rise to the level of

persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,

because there is no evidence the gang members were motivated by any protected

ground, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of Trejo-Benjarano’s asylum

and withholding of removal claims. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-

84 (1992). 

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Trejo-Benjarano is

ineligible for CAT relief, because he failed to establish that it is more likely than

not that he would be tortured if he returned to El Salvador. See Singh v. Gonzales,

439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006). 
JK/Research 3 07-72096

Trejo-Benjarano’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights by

issuing a streamlined decision is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350

F.3d 845, 848 (9th Cir. 2003). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.