alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11653]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1618]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status, Shin-Etsu Handotai 
America, Inc. (Semiconductor-Grade Silicon Wafers), Vancouver, WA

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for ``* * * the 
establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant 
to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of 
entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results 
in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest;
    Whereas, the Cowlitz County Economic Development Council, grantee 
of Foreign-Trade Zone 120, has made application to the Board for 
authority to establish a special-purpose subzone at the semiconductor-
grade silicon wafer manufacturing and distribution facility of Shin-
Etsu Handotai America, Inc., located in Vancouver, Washington, (FTZ 
Docket 63-2008, filed 10/30/2008);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (73 FR 66838-66839, 11/12/2008) and the application 
has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; 
and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status for activity related to the manufacturing and distribution of 
semiconductor-grade silicon wafers at the facility of Shin-Etsu 
Handotai America, Inc., located in Vancouver, Washington (Subzone 
120A), as described in the application and Federal Register notice, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 
400.28.
    Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of May 2009.

Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    Attest:
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11653 Filed 5-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
EX-4(E)



 





Exhibit 4(e)









November 29, 2007




Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549





			
	          Re:	 	The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company — Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007





Ladies and Gentlemen:




     The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, an Ohio corporation (“Scotts Miracle-Gro”), is today filing
its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007 (the “Form 10-K”).



     Neither Scotts Miracle-Gro nor any of its consolidated subsidiaries has outstanding any
instrument or agreement with respect to its long-term debt, other than those filed or incorporated
by reference as an exhibit to the Form 10-K, under which the total amount of long-term debt
authorized exceeds ten percent (10%) of the total assets of Scotts Miracle-Gro and its subsidiaries
on a consolidated basis. In accordance with the provisions of Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of SEC
Regulation S-K, Scotts Miracle-Gro hereby agrees to furnish to the SEC, upon request, a copy of
each such instrument or agreement defining the rights of holders of long-term debt of Scotts
Miracle-Gro or the rights of holders of long-term debt of one of Scotts Miracle-Gro’s consolidated
subsidiaries, in each case which is not being filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to
the Form 10-K.



Very truly yours,




THE SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY




/s/ David C. Evans




David C. Evans

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




14111 Scottslawn Road Marysville, OH 43041 937-644-0011

www.scotts.com
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 24869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12158]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1832-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]


Indiana; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Indiana (FEMA-1832-DR), dated April 22, 2009, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 13, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of April 22, 2009.
    Daviess, Lawrence, and St. Joseph Counties for Individual 
Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

Nancy Ward,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-12158 Filed 5-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         631,070
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  238,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               869,840
<PP&E>                                      11,201,800
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,382,529
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,689,111
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,689,111
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,689,111
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               578,641
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  346,595
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   295,670
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KASEY LEE NIPPER

No. 346PA06

(Filed 26 January 2007)

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 177 N.C. App. 794; 629 S.E.2d 883 (2006), finding no error in a judgment entered on 2 December 2004 by Judge Beverly T. Beal in Superior Court, Catawba County, following defendant’s conviction for first-degree arson. Heard in the Supreme Court 10 January 2007.

*Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*David Childers for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
#### Hyak HOVANNISYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-74376.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 23, 2006.

*797Hyak Hovannisyan, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Daniel G. Lonergan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Hyak Hovannisyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Gormley v. Ashcroft,*364 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Hovannisyan testified that Communist party members beat and threatened him because he was a messenger for a former party official and his attackers wanted information about the documents he delivered. Neither Hovannisyan’s testimony, nor any other evidence in the record, compels the conclusion that this mistreatment occurred, even in part, on account of his actual or imputed political opinion. *See id.*at 1177 (upholding agency determination where petitioner failed to demonstrate that perpetrators victimized him on account of a protected ground).

Because Hovannisyan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See id.*at 1180.

Hovannisyan also failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief because he did not show it was more likely than not that he would be tortured by authorities or individuals acting in an official capacity if he returned to Armenia. *See*8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
{"status":true,"count":2,"text":"\u003Cp class=\u0022messages messages--status\u0022\u003EAdded to cart\u003C\/p\u003E","id":"ajax-addtocart-message-7546","block":"\u003Cdiv class=\u0022basic_cart-grid basic-cart-block\u0022\u003E\n  \n\n          \u003Cdiv class=\u0022basic_cart-cart-contents row\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv class=\u0022basic_cart-cart-node-title cell\u0022\u003E\u003Ca href=\u0022\/publication-products\/age-related-hearing-loss\u0022\u003EAge-Related Hearing Loss\u003C\/a\u003E \u003C\/div\u003E\n              \n        \u003Cdiv class=\u0022basic_cart-cart-unit-price cell\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cstrong\u003E\u003C\/strong\u003E    \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003Cdiv class=\u0022basic_cart-cart-contents row\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv class=\u0022basic_cart-cart-node-title cell\u0022\u003E\u003Ca href=\u0022\/publication-products\/american-sign-language\u0022\u003EAmerican Sign Language\u003C\/a\u003E \u003C\/div\u003E\n              \n        \u003Cdiv class=\u0022basic_cart-cart-unit-price cell\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cstrong\u003E\u003C\/strong\u003E    \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022basic_cart-cart-total-price-contents row\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv class=\u0022basic_cart-total-price cell\u0022\u003E\n            Total Price: \u003Cstrong\u003E 0,00 USD \u003C\/strong\u003E\n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E \n\n\n         \n\n\n       \u003Cdiv class=\u0022basic_cart-cart-checkout-button basic_cart-cart-checkout-button-block row\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Ca href=\u0027\/cart\u0027 class=\u0027button\u0027\u003EView cart \u003C\/a\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n\n  \u003C\/div\u003E"}
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 17, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

In the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

_______________

m 04-20107

_______________

KATHERINE E. HAMMOND,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

m H-02-CV-4171

______________________________

On Petition for Rehearing

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DEMOSS, 

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is DENIED. We do, however, elect to

comment on two points raised in the petition.

In her petition for rehearing, Hammond

argues that Istre v. Apfel, 208 F.3d 517 (5th

Cir. 2000), stands for the proposition that the

good cause requirement applies only to cases

brought under sentence (6) of § 405(g), in

which new evidence is presented for the first

time in the district court. Although that

happens to be the procedural posture of this

case, we do not read the important holding of

the opinion in that way. Instead, Istre holds

that there are no permissible bases for remand
2

other than under sentences (4) and (6) of §

405(g). The district court did not remand

here, so Istre is inapplicable. In other words,

Istre concerned the circumstances under which

a case may be remanded, not the circumstances under which it must be remanded.

Also in her petition for rehearing,

Hammond argues that “new evidence

submitted to the Appeals Council justifies

reversal.” Hammond indeed introduces

evidence that would have been material, had

the date of the hearing been later. We,

however, cannot deem evidence material

insofar as it details the alleged worsening of a

claimant’s condition after the date of the hearing. This is not to say that we cannot consider

any evidence post-dating a hearing, but that

medical evidence must shed light on the

severity of a claimant’s medical condition

before the hearing.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CHARLES SMITH,

Appellant,

v.

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOAN SERVICING, LP, TERRELL SMITH, 

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS 

INCORPORATED AS NOMINEE FOR COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL 

CORPORATION and SARACENO WEST COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, 

INCORPORATED, 

Appellees.

No. 4D17-2642

[May 3, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Joel T. Lazarus, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE09011197.

Charles Smith, Plantation, pro se.

Shakiva Brown of Phelan Hallinan Diamond & Jones, PLLC, Fort 

Lauderdale, for Appellee Countrywide Home Loans Servicing L.P.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
The District Court of the 9th Judicial District. County of Pondera.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. TIMOTHY MEDLEN, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-09-13 DECISION

On September 28,2009, the defendant was sentenced a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of seven (7) years, with five (5) years *14suspended, for the offense of Count I: Criminal or Manufacture of a Dangerous Drug (marijuana), a felony.

On February 4, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Kara Docherty. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 4th day of February, 2010.

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  About Us 
-  Staff Directory 

# Lynne Penn

lpenn@mail.nih.gov

**NIDCD Acting Deputy Executive Officer/Chief Administrative Officer**

March 5, 2024
#### Rebecca Chusid, Respondent, v Daniel Silvera, Appellant. (And Another Action.)

[971 NYS2d 878]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Janowitz, J.), dated April 3, 2012, as, after a hearing, denied that branch of his motion which was to change venue of the action from Nassau County to New York County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to change venue of the action from Nassau County to New York County. The resolution of credibility issues by the hearing court is entitled to deference on appeal, and will be upheld if supported by the evidence in the record *(see generally Shaw Funding, L.P. v Samuel,*101 AD3d 1100 [2012]; *Gass v Gass,*42 AD3d 393 [2007]; *Ahrens v Chisena,*40 AD3d 787, 788 [2007]; *Lattingtown Harbor*Prop. *Owners Assn., Inc. v Agostino,*34 AD3d 536, 538 [2006]). The record in this case supports the court’s conclusion that the plaintiff maintained a residence in Nassau County in addition to the parties’ marital residence in New York County during the parties’ short marriage *(see*CPLR 503 [a]; *Morreale v 105 Page Homeowners Assn., Inc.,*64 AD3d 689, 690 [2009]; *Bennett v Bennett,*49 AD3d 949, 949-950 [2008]; *Bradley v Plaisted,*277 App Div 620, 621-622 [2000]; *Jones-Ledbetter v Biltmore Auto Sales,*229 AD2d 518, 519 [1996]; *Mandelbaum v Mandelbaum,*151 AD2d 727, 728 [1989]).

*660The defendant’s remaining contentions, raised for the first time on appeal, are not properly before this Court *(see Provident Bank v Giannasca,*55 AD3d 812 [2008]). Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Barnes & Noble, Inc.



|1. | Barnes & Noble BookQuest LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., a Delaware corporation.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------



|3. | Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. | Barnes & Noble Marketing Services Corp., a Florida corporation.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------



|5. | Barnes & Noble Purchasing, Inc., a New York corporation.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------



|6. | Barnes & Noble Services, Inc., a New York corporation.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------



|7. | barnesandnoble.com llc, a Delaware limited liability company.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------



|8. | Fictionwise LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------



|9. | PalmGear, Inc., a Tennessee corporation.
|-- | ----------------------------------------



|10. | Palm Digital Media, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------



|11. | SparkNotes LLC, a New York limited liability company.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------



|12. | Sterling Publishing Co., Inc., a New York corporation.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------



|13. | Tikatok LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------
#### Green *v.*Smith.

The evidence warranted the verdict, and there was no error in deny, ing a new trial.

April 16, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*702Levy and claim. Before Judge McWhorter. Early superior court. April term, 1893.

R. H. Sheffield, by Harrison & Peeples, for plaintiff in error. R. H. Powell & Son. *contra.*