alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 121 (Thursday, June 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14943]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. TA-421-7]


Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires From the People's 
Republic of China; Determination

    On the basis of information developed in the subject investigation, 
the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) 
determines, pursuant to section 421(b)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974,\1\ 
that certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires \2\ from the 
People's Republic of China are being imported into the United States in 
such increased quantities or under such conditions as to cause or 
threaten to cause market disruption to the domestic producers of like 
or directly competitive products.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 19 U.S.C. 2451(b)(1).
    \2\ For purposes of this investigation, certain passenger 
vehicle and light truck tires are defined as new pneumatic tires, of 
rubber, from China, of a kind used on motor cars (except racing 
cars) and on-the-highway light trucks, vans, and sport utility 
vehicles, provided for in subheadings 4011.10.10, 4011.10.50, 
4011.20.10, and 4011.20.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
United States (``HTS''). The HTS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the 
product under investigation is dispositive.
    \3\ Vice Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna 
Tanner Okun made a negative determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted this investigation following receipt, on 
April 20, 2009, of a petition filed by the United Steel, Paper and 
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 
Workers International Union. Notice of the institution of the 
Commission's investigation and of the scheduling of a public hearing to 
be held in connection therewith was given by posting a copy of the 
notice on the Commission's Web site (http://www.usitc.gov) and by 
publishing the notice in the Federal Register of April 29, 2009 (74 FR 
19593). The hearing was held on June 2, 2009 in Washington, DC; all 
persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in 
person or by counsel.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: June 19, 2009.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-14943 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Order entered January 26, 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 22
- 01358
- CV
DALLAS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT D/B/A PARKLAND HEALTH

AND HOSPITAL SYSTEM , Appellant

V. MICHAEL BALLEW , Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 20
- 04852
- A

O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s January 24, 2023 first unopposed motion for
an extension of time to file its brief on t he merits. Because this is an accelerated appeal, we GRANT the motion to the extent it is now due February 28, 2023

.
/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
#### In the Matter of Otes G. Rodriguez, Appellant, v Thomas LaValley, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 897]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lawliss, J.), entered August 8, 2012 in Clinton County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging his underlying conviction. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, concluding that petitioner’s challenges were not properly raised in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Inasmuch as “[a]n article 78 proceeding generally does not lie to review error claimed to have occurred in a criminal proceeding” *(Matter of Hennessy v Gorman,*58 NY2d 806, 807 [1983]; *see Matter of Carpenter v Corcoran,*75 AD3d 1110, 1111 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 712 [2010]), the proceeding was properly dismissed. Clearly, respondent has no authority to vacate the judgment of conviction (see *Matter of Reed v Travis,*19 AD3d 829, 830 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 708 [2005]), and such challenges must be made by directly appealing the judg*1245ment of conviction *(see*CPL 450.10 [1]; 450.60 [3]; 470.15 [1]; *Matter of Carpenter v Corcoran,*75 AD3d at 1111). Here, petitioner had a full opportunity to challenge the judgment of conviction on direct appeal and was unsuccessful *(People v Rodriguez,*32 AD3d 1203 [2006], *lv denied*8 NY3d 849 [2007]), and “there is no ground upon which that judgment may be collaterally attacked by way of a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78” *(Matter of Garcha v City Ct. [City of Beacon],*39 AD3d 645, 646 [2007]).

Rose, J.P, Stein, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

-- -- -- --

NO. 15-0264

LISA EDWARDS

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE

SERVICES

§

§

§

§

§

§

Dallas County,

5th District.

June 5, 2015

Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.



I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of

Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of

said Court under the date shown.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 16th day of July, 2015.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

SECTION 302 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Matthew Hutchins, Chief Financial and Executive Officer, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of IBroadband, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4.

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a.

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b.

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and



c.

Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a.

All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and



b.

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls;



6.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date: May 29, 2007



By:

/s/ Matthew Hutchins







Chief Financial and Executive Officer
@article{1214721,
  author = {Frances Allen and Paul Blanchard and David Pappas and Russell Lake and Deying Xia and John Notte and Ruopeng Zhang and Andrew Minor and Norman A. Sanford},
  title = {Fabrication of Specimens for Atom Probe Tomography using a Combined Gallium and Neon Focused Ion Beam Milling Approach},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-08-16 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Microscopy and Microanalysis},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936205},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/micmic/ozad078},
  language = {en},
}
@misc{1208056,
  author = {Marcos Motta de Souza and Bala Muralikrishnan and Vincent Lee and Daniel S. Sawyer},
  title = {Laser tracker interim testing per the ASME B89.4.19-2021 and ISO 10360-10:2021 standards},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-06-28 04:06:00},
  publisher = {NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936157},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8469},
  language = {en},
}
Exhibit 32.1

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 Shearson Select Advisors Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Partnership.

/s/ Jerry Pascucci
Jerry Pascucci
Citigroup Managed Futures LLC
President and Director

March 31, 2008
Date

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7650** 

TRAVIS J. MCFADDEN , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. REUBEN YOUNG , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. ( 5:12

- hc

- 02205

- F )

Submitted : February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4 , 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Travis J. McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precede nt in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Travis J. McFadden seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his motion to appoint counsel and the court’s order denying his motion for reconsiderati on. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional ri ght.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatabl e or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is deb atable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McFadden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a c ertificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral3 argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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 Transportation

###### Federal Highway Administration 

# AGENCY:

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT and the Missouri Department of Transportation. 

# ACTION:

Rescind Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. 

# SUMMARY:

The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that we are rescinding the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for improvements that were proposed to the transportation system in Jefferson County, Missouri. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Peggy J. Casey, Environmental Projects Team Leader, FHWA Division Office, 3220 West Edgewood, Suite H, Jefferson City, Missouri 65109, Telephone: (573) 638-2620 or Kathy Harvey, State Design Engineer, Missouri Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 270, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102, Telephone: (573) 526-5678.                               ( print page 31087)    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FHWA, in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), is rescinding the NOI to prepare an EIS for a project that had been proposed to improve the transportation system in Jefferson County, Missouri. The NOI is being rescinded because locally elected officials and members of the local community expressed the need to find more immediate and localized improvements to address safety and congestion problems, and do not support this project. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.)

Issued on: June 24, 2009. 

Peggy J. Casey, 

Environmental Projects Team Leader, Jefferson City.

[FR Doc. E9-15269 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
Exhibit 23. Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors
Northeast Bancorp
Lewiston, Maine

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-85206), (No. 33-32095), (No. 33-58538, (No. 33-32096) and (No. 33-87976) of Northeast Bancorp of our report dated August 11, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Northeast Bancorp and Subsidiaries included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2005.

|Portland, Maine    | /s/ Baker Newman & Noyes 
|------------------ | -------------------------
|September 26, 2005 | Baker Newman & Noyes     
|                   | Limited Liability Company
JULY 16TH 2015

MICHAEL RAY CHANDLER JR #1875978

ESTELLE UNIT, 264 FM 3478

HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS 77320

RE: VIOLATION OF TIME LIMITATIONS:: / VOILATION OF DUE

CAUSE # 5284-2

Dear COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, ABLE ACOSTA, CLERK,

It.M-OA

'ftPCRIMINM APPEALS

JUL n m

January 14th, 2015 was when Bee County District Clerk final

me a letter confirming that my Writ Of Habeas Corous was filed:

I had mailed off the Writ October of 2014 and it took four mont

it was actually filed. Futhermore, 1 waited severel months befo

-ded to question Bee County's Clerk Ms. ZENAIDA SILVA about the

-ncj answered by Bee County's Court and I never received a respo

severel letters', so I wrote you, The Courts Of Appeals and twi

wrote back claiming that you showed no record of Bee County fow

my Writ and I sent them the letters' you had sent me questionin

Court. I strongly believed that they were trying to cover up th

it was obvious that they did not want to foward the Writ to a h

Court, which is why I then wrote the 5TH Circute Court out of L

to: investigate...the matter and all of a sudden I receive your ca

On this day, the application for 11.07 Writ of Habeas Corpus ha

received and presented to the Court-JULY 2ND,2015.

ly wrote •

note that

hs before

re I deciWrit beier

nee in

ce you

arding

g Beeville

e matter,

igher

o u i s i a n a

rd stating

s been

The question at hand is "DID BEEVILLE 156TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ERROR IN NOT FOWARDING MY WRIT WITHIN THE PROPER TIME LIMITATION?" SHOULD

NOT THIS BE SOME TYPE OF ERROR VIOLATING MY RIGHTS,' ;;ISv NOT THIS GROUNDS

TO ACT IN MY FAVIOR FOR AUTOMATIC REVERSAL? Look at the dates, Beeville's

Distric Clerk has not contacted me whatsoever since the letter written

January 14th 2015.

Surely there must me rules, statues of limitations, and laws violated

here. If the shoe was on the other foot & the Claim was aqainst me,;;h;j^:y

there I would surely be at a loss and whatever burden that came with '

my error would act aqainst me. Threrfore I ask that you take this in

consideration for the record and please foward a copy of this letter

to the 5TH Circute Courts there in Louisiana for record purposes, i

don't want this issue to be neqlected, Im brinqinq it to the Courts

Attention.

This is my Grievance aqainst Beeville District Court, and this is

my claim aqainst the CourtRespectfully Submitted,

j&l*tiL \(juifu^ wl In dtk cWL, U)tai wcudty WM. 3fy -not
ik |bUen jhry ty ^ /^U,Jk^ vU a Sie^tA. but J

.A* I hJ\ t\l A Pi I/> 1/1/1 /VA/lT/W 4 O Ol J . . . . - » ..'

- ftAUdi .., (L.4 Jo -lL i . 0 Aft .1 V

0. i^C dAlvxA- arJ. Ham. a SeAtuUl CcamaX^S £jL m Q.

$^^ ^J^j
#### HOUGHTON MIFFLIN CO. v. STACKPOLE SONS, Inc., et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Sept. 26, 1940.

*507Hines, Rearick, Dorr & Hammond, of New York City (Archie O. Dawson, and John D. Mooney, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Philip Wittenberg, of New York City, for defendants.

MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

This is a motion by defendants, pursuant to Rules 30 and 31 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, for an order that the deposition of one Fritz Weidemann shall not be taken upon written interrogatories as proposed by the plaintiff, or in the alternative, that it may be taken only on an oral examination.

The action is brought under the Copyright Laws of the United States for an alleged infringement of the book “Mein Kampf*’ for which it is asserted the plaintiff has been assigned the United States Copyright rights. The interrogatories seek to question the witness with respect to the signature upon the assignment of the copyright rights and his knowledge of the status of the person whose signature appears thereon.

As I interpret the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals in this case (Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Stackpole Sons, Inc., et al., 2 Cir., 113 F.2d 627), plaintiff has the burden of proving the execution of the assignment of July 29, 1933. The plaintiff endeavors to obtain this evidence by way of interrogatories and it should be allowed to prove its case in its own way. All the objections which defendants make here with respect to the competency and materiality of the interrogatories will be before the court at the trial. Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If such objections are then sustained, there will be no injury or prejudice to defendants.

A word should be said with respect to defendants’ request that the testimony of Weidemann be taken by oral examination. I will permit such oral examination in lieu of interrogatories on condition that defendants pay plaintiff’s attorneys their reasonable expenses to attend at an oral examination of Fritz Weidemann in San Francisco. Otherwise denied. Submit order on notice.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3555 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 

at 515 9th Street in Rapid City, South Dakota, as the ‘‘Andrew W. 

Bogue Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 30, 2010 

Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Mr. THUNE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 515 9th Street in Rapid City, South 

Dakota, as the ‘‘Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building 

and United States Courthouse’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ANDREW W. BOGUE FEDERAL BUILDING AND 

4 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building and United 

6 States courthouse located at 515 9th Street in Rapid City, 

7 South Dakota, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘AnVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:08 Jul 01, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3555.IS S3555

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3555 IS

1 drew W. Bogue Federal Building and United States 

2 Courthouse’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the Federal building and United States court6 house referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 

7 a reference to the ‘‘Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building 

8 and United States Courthouse’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS