alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 40168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17884]



[[Page 40168]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-860 (Third Review)]


Tin- and Chromium-Coated Steel Sheet From Japan; Notice of 
Commission Determination To Conduct a Full Five-Year Review

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with a 
full review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether 
revocation of the antidumping duty order on Tin- and Chromium-Coated 
Steel Sheet from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A 
schedule for the review will be established and announced at a later 
date.

DATES: August 4, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Casanova (202-708-2719), Office 
of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street 
SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 
information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal 
on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need 
special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact 
the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information 
concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its 
internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this 
review may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at 
https://edis.usitc.gov.
    For further information concerning the conduct of this review and 
rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 
201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 4, 2017, the Commission determined 
that it should proceed to a full review in the subject five-year review 
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1675(c)). The Commission found that both the domestic and respondent 
interested party group responses to its notice of institution (82 FR 
20378, May 1, 2017) were adequate. A record of the Commissioners' 
votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual 
Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the 
Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.
    Authority: This review is being conducted under authority of title 
VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 
section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 18, 2017.
Katherine M. Hiner,
Supervisory Attorney.
[FR Doc. 2017-17884 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Stephen M. Humphrey, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Graphic PackagingCorporation;

 

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

 

3.              Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.              The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a)             designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)            evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)             disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.              The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)             all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; 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.

 

 
|   | Date:  August  5, 2004           |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |                                  |
|   | /s/ STEPHEN M. HUMPHREY               |
|   | Stephen M. Humphrey                   |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### BOGAR v. UJLAKI.

Civ. A. No. 3050.

District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

May 8, 1945.

Armin H. Friedman, Prichard, Lawler, Malone & Geltz, and Charles B. Prichard, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Joseph H. Reich, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.

GIBSON, District Judge.

On June 15, 1944, the plaintiff filed his complaint. At the same time he directed service of the summons upon the defendant at 1946 Bakewell Street, Toledo, Ohio; and the Marshal of the Ohio District, on July 17, 1944, made his return of service. On July 27, 1944, the defendant appeared and filed his answer to the allegations as they appeared in the complaint. On December 21, 1944, defendant filed an amended answer. Before doing so, he obtained the consent of one of plaintiff’s counsel, without telling him, however, of the nature of the proposed amendment.

In the amendment the subject matter of the first answer was repeated, and, in added defenses, the defendant asserted that he was not subject to service of process of *353this court in Ohio, and prayed that the summons be quashed and the complaint be dismissed.

On April 6, 1945, before another judge of this court, plaintiff moved for an order for a jury trial. This motion was opposed by counsel for defendant, but upon what grounds doe"! not appear. The motion was granted.

On April 19, 1945, without further motion filed, counsel appeared and argued the motion to quash the service and to dismiss the action, and were heard by this court.

Had the defendant filed his objection to the service of the summons in Ohio in his first answer, no question could exist as to its force, and the duty of the court would have required an order dismissing the action, as the court had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. Orange Theatre Corp. v. Rayherstz Amusement Corp., 3 Cir., 139 F.2d 871; Blank v. Bitker, 7 Cir., 135 F.2d 962. But in his original answer, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint without mentioning the defense set out in his amendment. He voluntarily appeared, answered to the merits, and not until five months later (and then without leave of court) did he file his objection to the service of process. By his original answer and delay in amendment, he had waived his right to assert lack of jurisdiction.

> “It has long been recognized, however, that the filing of an answer to the merits involves an appearance in the action for all purposes. * * *

“If the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the person is not raised by motion before answer or in the answer itself it is by the express terms of paragraph (h) of Civil Procedure Rule 12 [28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c] to be treated as waived, not because of the defendant’s voluntary appearance but because of his failure to assert the defense within the time prescribed by the rules. We conclude that within the time allowed for serving the answer the defendant may assert this defense unless he has waived it by some action other than his voluntary appearance.” Orange Theatre Corp. v. Rayherstz Amusement Corp., supra [139 F.2d 874],

The prayer of the defendant to quash the service of the summons and to dismiss the action will be denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                           3,603
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,941
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,233
<INVENTORY>                                     85,709
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               180,694
<PP&E>                                         135,077
<DEPRECIATION>                                  73,096
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 277,466
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,879
<BONDS>                                         66,675
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           113
<OTHER-SE>                                     162,820
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   277,466
<SALES>                                        119,120
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               119,120
<CGS>                                           68,808
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,808
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   481
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,678
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,682)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,511)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,171)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.65)


</TABLE>
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, 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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, 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 Peer Review Meeting,                    

*Date:*                         September 27, 2017.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Kelly Y. Poe, Ph.D., Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3F40B, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5036,                        *poeky@mail.nih.gov.*

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

                        Dated:                         *August 24, 2017.*

Natasha M. Copeland, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2017-18337 Filed 8-29-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of CEO and CFO

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 on Form 10-KSB of Consolidated Capital Growth Fund (the "Partnership"), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(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/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: March
	31, 2008  
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: March
	31, 2008  



This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATIONS

In
connection with the annual report of Talisman Energy Inc. (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John A. Manzoni, President and 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:

By:

/s/ JOHN A. MANZONIName:

John A. ManzoniTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer


DATEDat Calgary, Alberta, as of March 5, 2012

---





CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the annual report of Talisman Energy Inc. (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, L. Scott Thomson, Executive Vice-President,
Finance and Chief Financial 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:

By:

/s/ L. SCOTT THOMSONL. Scott Thomson
Executive Vice-President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer


DATEDat Calgary, Alberta, as of March 5, 2012

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
James W. Buckee, certify that:

March 13,
2007

|By:    |  | /s/JAMES W. BUCKEE                    |  | 
|------ |  | ------------------------------------- |  | 
|Name:  |  | James W. Buckee                       |  | 
|Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 

1

---



CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Philip D. Dolan, certify that:

March 13,
2007

|By:    |  | /s/PHILIP D. DOLAN                                  |  | 
|------ |  | --------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Name:  |  | Philip D. Dolan                                     |  | 
|Title: |  | Vice-President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer |  | 

2

---



QuickLinks
#### Whitney and others v. Robertson, Collector, etc.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

September 19, 1884.)

Customs Duties—Treaty—Act of Congress—Exemption from Duty.

A stipulation in a treaty with a foreign power that “ no higher or other duties shall be imposed on the importation into the United States of any article, the produce or manufacture of the dominion of the treaty-making power, * ** **than are or shall be payable on the like articles, being the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country,” dees not prevent congress from passing an act exempting from duty like products and manufactures imported from any particular foreign dominion it may see fit.

On Demurrer to Complaint.

*Charles Stewart Davison,*for plaintiffs.

*Elihu Root,*U. S. Dist. Atty., and *Saml. B. Clark,*for defendants.

Wallace, J.

The questions raised by the demurrer are the same considered in the case of *Bertram*v. *Robertson,*15 Fed. Rep. 212, and for the reasons stated in the opinion there delivered the demurrer is sustained.

Judgment is ordered for the defendant.
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit (32)(b)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-K of Consumers Energy Company
(the "Company") for the annual period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), David W.
Joos, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Thomas J. Webb, as
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

            (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.

   /s/ David W. Joos
------------------------------
Name:  David W. Joos
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:  February 23, 2007

   /s/ Thomas J. Webb
------------------------------
Name:  Thomas J. Webb
Title: Executive Vice President and
       Chief Financial Officer
Date:  February 23, 2007
#### Donald B. HATTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-15152.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

*59Donald B. Hatton, Grass Valley, CA, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Garland E. Burrell, Chief Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-01888-GEB/ GGH.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Donald B. Hatton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to follow a court order his action, filed in forma pauperis, alleging that Bank of America recklessly lost a bank account in which he had deposited $24 trillion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal for failure to follow a court order. *Ferdik v. Bonzelet,*963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Hatton’s action for failure to follow a court order where the district court described the inadequacies of Hatton’s complaint, including his failure to allege the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, and warned him that failure to file an amended complaint would result in dismissal. *See id.*at 1260-62; *Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc.,*356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir.2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.”).

Hatton’s “motion to alter” is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.