alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

          - 26 CFR Part 1
          - [REG-103477-14]
          - RIN 1545-BL96

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document contains a correction to a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-103477-14) that was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on Friday, January 6, 2017 (82 FR 1629). The notice of proposed rulemaking under chapter 4 of the Subtitle A (sections 1471 through 1474) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code) relates to verification and certification requirements for certain entities and reporting by foreign financial institutions.                    

# DATES:

This correction is effective September 15, 2017 and is applicable beginning January 6, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kamela Nelan at (202) 317-6942 (not a toll-free number).

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Background

The notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-103477-14) that is the subject of this correction is under sections 1471 through 1474 of the Code.

## Need for Correction

As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-103477-14) contains an omission which may prove to be misleading and needs to be corrected.

## Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking (82 FR 1629, January 6, 2017) is corrected as follows:

On page 1636, insert the following language after the eighth line from the top of the second column:

## “Withdrawal of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

                    Accordingly, under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-130967-13) that was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on Thursday, March 6, 2014 (79 FR 12868) is withdrawn.”                

Martin V. Franks,

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).

[FR Doc. 2017-19540 Filed 9-14-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 230 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 230

      Designating September 25, 2015, as ``National Lobster Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 27, 2015

 Mr. King (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. 
 Reed, Ms. Ayotte, and Mr. Murphy) submitted the following resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      Designating September 25, 2015, as ``National Lobster Day''.

Whereas lobster from the United States is recognized around the world as a 
        prized culinary delicacy;
Whereas lobster fishing has served as an economic engine and a family tradition 
        in the United States for centuries;
Whereas thousands of families in the United States make their livelihoods from 
        lobster fishing and processing;
Whereas more than 120,000,000 pounds of lobster are caught each year in waters 
        of the United States, representing one of the Nation's most valuable 
        catches;
Whereas the lobster industry is booming abroad, with profits climbing from 
        $335,800,000 in 2009 to $738,600,000 in 2014;
Whereas historical lore notes that lobster likely joined turkey on the table at 
        the very first Thanksgiving Day feast in 1621;
Whereas responsible lobstering practices, beginning in the 1600s, have created 
        one of the world's most sustainable fisheries;
Whereas Lobster Newburg was featured on the menu at the inaugural dinner 
        celebration for President John F. Kennedy;
Whereas lobsters are one of the most healthy and nutritious sources of protein;
Whereas the peak of the lobstering season in the United States occurs in the 
        late summer;
Whereas lobster has become a culinary icon, with the lobster roll being featured 
        at the 2015 World Food Expo in Milan, Italy; and
Whereas lobster is featured on more and more restaurant menus, growing by 35 
        percent from 2009 to 2013: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates September 25, 2015, as ``National Lobster 
        Day''; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19406]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice: (17-063)]


Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; Charter Renewal

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of renewal of charter of the Aerospace Safety Advisory 
Panel.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to sections 14(b)(1) and 9(c) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), and after consultation with the 
Committee Management Secretariat, U.S. General Services Administration, 
the NASA Acting Administrator has determined that renewal of the 
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) is in the public interest in 
connection with the performance of duties imposed on NASA by law. The 
renewed charter is for a two-year period ending on August 15, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carol Hamilton, Designated Federal 
Officer, Office of International and Interagency Relations, NASA 
Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546; phone (202) 358-1857; email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4a292b382526642064222b2723263e25240a242b392b642d253c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7f1c1e0d1013511551171e1216130b10113f111e0c1e51181009">[email protected]</span></a>.

Patricia D. Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-19406 Filed 9-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7510-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Sherman *v.*Landon and others.

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

January 23, 1883.)

Shipman, J.

The motion of the defendant for a new trial in the above-entitled cause is denied.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 filed on the date
hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 By:
    /s/ KENNETH D. TUCHMANKenneth D. TuchmanChairman and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

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

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly Report of ATSI Communications, Inc. on Form
10-QA  for  the  period  ending April 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof, I, Arthur L. Smith, Chief Executive
Officer  of  the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C, ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that,

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

2)   the information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
     the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

By /s/ Arthur L. Smith
Arthur L. Smith
Chief Executive Officer
December 31, 2003


<PAGE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

mtntteb ~tates qcourt of §ppeaIs

for tbe jfeberaI qctrcutt

MELISSA L. BURNETT,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT,

Respondent.

2012-3176

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection

Board in case no. CH1221110614-W-1.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Melissa L. Burnett moves for leave to file a Certificate

of Interest. The court also construes Burnett's October 25,

2012 letter as a motion for an extension of time, until

November 25,2012, to file her informal brief.

Because Burnett is a pro se appellant she does not need

to file a certificate of interest. See Federal Circuit Rules

26.1 and 47.4.

Case: 12-3176 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 11/27/2012
MELISSA BURNETT v. Hun

Accordingly,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

2

(1) The motion to file a certificate of interest is denied

as moot.

(2) The motion for an extension of time is granted to

the extent that Burnett's informal brief is due November

26,2012.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s27

Case: 12-3176 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 11/27/2012
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Solomon RAEFSKY and Philip Kear, formerly partners, trading as Automotive Body and Metal Work Training School, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, Automotive Body and Metal Work Training School, Inc., Third-Party Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Benjamin KOLSKY, Individually and trading as Automotive Body and Metal Work Training School, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, Automotive Body and Metal Work Training School, Inc., Third-Party Defendant.

Civ. A. Nos. 18304, 19156.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

June 26, 1956.

W. Wilson White, U. S. Atty., Norman C. Henss, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Gilbert Stein, Joseph E. Gold, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

WELSH, District Judge.

The United States commenced these actions against the partnership named herein and the individual members thereof to recover alleged overpayments made in connection with the operation of a *“G.*I.” Training School. Subsequently, defendants filed motions to join as third-party defendant the corporation formed by them. The proposed third-party complaints alleged inter alia that the transactions on which the claim of the United States for overpayments is based occurred after the formation of the corporation ; that the partnership and the individual members are not liable; and that if they are liable the corporation is liable over to them for any sums the United States may recover against them. This Court felt the proposed third-party complaints were proper under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 14, 28 U.S. C.A. and accordingly granted said motions. The corporation then filed answers to the third-party complaints and counterclaims against the United States. The United States has now moved to dismiss the counterclaims.

*356The counterclaims must, we think, be dismissed. When this Court allowed the joinder of the corporation it was thereby made a defendant in the third-party action but it was not thereby made a defendant in the original action brought by the United States. Also, the United States did not amend its complaint to make the corporation a defendant as to it, the United States. Thus, as the record now stands there are actions 1. by the United States against the partnership and the individual members thereof and 2. by the partnership and the individual members thereof against the corporation.

It is observed no action by the United States against the corporation is pending. A counterclaim pre-supposes the existence of a claim against the party filing the counterclaim. There being no claim by the United States against the corporation and counterclaimant, we conclude the counterclaims filed by the corporation herein are improper and should be dismissed.

An appropriate order will be prepared and submitted.
#### Jorge Aguilar VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-75495.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.**

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Victor D. Nieblas Pradis, City of Industry, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Liza S. Murcia, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Jorge Aguilar Vazquez seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have *980jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, *see Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Aguilar Vazquez contends the IJ violated due process by exhibiting bias. Contrary to Aguilar Vazquez’s contention, the proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from reasonably presenting [his] case.” *Colmenar v. INS,*210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted). Moreover, the BIA’s independent discretionary determination cured any IJ error regarding Aguilar Vazquez’s stepfather’s eligibility for Social Security benefits. *See Elnager v. INS,*930 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir.1991); *see also Colmenar,*210 F.3d at 971 (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 10.19

 

Summary of Executive Officer Compensation

 

Our executive officers are at will employees. The current base salary for each of our executive officers is:

 

Paul A. Maleh, $500,000

Monica G. Noether, $450,000

Arnold J. Lowenstein, $400,000

Wayne D. Mackie, $375,000

 

On February 23, 2010, the compensation committee of our board of directors set the performance goals, target amounts and maximum amounts payable in respect of fiscal year 2010 for performance awards granted under our 2007 cash incentive plan to our executive officers. These performance awards are payable in cash and only to the extent certain performance goals, based on objective business criteria specified by the compensation committee of our board of directors, are achieved in fiscal 2010. For each executive officer, 70% of the performance goals are based on objective business criteria: 40% is tied to net revenue and 30% is tied to earnings before interest and taxes (in each case excluding the impact of our NeuCo subsidiary, acquisitions, discontinued operations and extraordinary and special items, as approved by the compensation committee of our board of directors).  In addition, the remaining 30% is based on specified personal objectives of each officer.  The portion of the bonus determined based on objective business criteria is intended to qualify as performance based compensation pursuant to Section 162(m) of the Code, while the portion of the bonus based on personal objectives is not.  The target and maximum amounts payable to these executive officers under these performance awards in respect of fiscal 2010 are as follows: Paul A. Maleh - target of $800,000 and maximum of $1,408,000; Monica G. Noether - target of $600,000 and maximum of $1,056,000; Arnold J. Lowenstein - target of $400,000 and maximum of $704,000; and Wayne D. Mackie - target of $250,000 and maximum of $440,000.  The amount payable under each of these performance awards may be reduced by the compensation committee in its full discretion.  In addition, the amount payable under each of these performance awards may be reduced or deferred to ensure that the compensation payable to each of our executive officers meets the deductibility limits under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 239 

Commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Virginia Institute of Marine 

Science of the College of William & Mary. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 30, 2015 

Mr. KAINE (for himself and Mr. WARNER) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science of the College of William & Mary. 

Whereas the Virginia General Assembly, with Professor Donald W. Davis of the College of William & Mary, envisioned a center for marine research and education in the 

Commonwealth of Virginia; 

Whereas the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (referred to 

in this preamble as ‘‘VIMS’’), originally known as the 

Virginia Fisheries Laboratory, began operation in 1940; 

Whereas the early work of VIMS assured the future of the 

fishery industry in Virginia by improving the general 

knowledge of the resources of fisheries so that they might 

be properly conserved and managed, and by meeting the 

need for training in practical marine biology; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 239 IS 

Whereas VIMS is now the home of the School of Marine 

Sciences of the College of William & Mary, a university 

research and teaching center with a strong element of 

public service, and is the leading marine center that focuses on estuarine and coastal environments in the nation; and 

Whereas VIMS continues to serve the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States by advancing the frontiers of 

marine science and sharing the knowledge gained through 

research with the users and stewards of the environment 

and future scientists: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) congratulates the College of William & Mary 

3 and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science on the 

75th 4 anniversary of the Virginia Institute of Marine 

5 Science; and 

6 (2) expresses appreciation for the 75 years of 

7 service to the environment by the faculty, staff, and 

8 students of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

9 and the School of Marine Sciences of the College of 

10 William & Mary. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

               CERTIFICATION OF ROBERT J. CHAMBERLAIN 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 quarterly report of Onyx Software Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Robert J. Chamberlain,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Date: May 10, 2005

By: /s/ ROBERT J. CHAMBERLAIN
    --------------------------
        Robert J. Chamberlain

        Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6924
HENRY JOHN WHITED, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD F. MOAT, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nick erson, District Judge. (CA-95-1039-WMN) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry John Whited, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court entered its order on April 14, 1995; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on June 6, 1995. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprivesthis court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED