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

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, November 14, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be held Tuesday, November 14, 2017, at 12:00 p.m., Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Robert Rosalia. For more information please contact Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203, or write TAP Office, 2 Metrotech Center, 100 Myrtle Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11201 or contact us at the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*                     The agenda will include various IRS issues.                

Dated: October 1, 2017.

Susan Jimerson,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2017-21478 Filed 10-4-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
           
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations filed
as part of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such quarterly report on Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              mar-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   jun-30-1997
<CASH>                                         48,805
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,167,612
<ALLOWANCES>                                   206,417
<INVENTORY>                                    945,017
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,107,536
<PP&E>                                         516,191
<DEPRECIATION>                                 411,801
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,224,186
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          790,057
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    2030
<COMMON>                                       512
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,764,863
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,224,186
<SALES>                                        1,448,694
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,448,694
<CGS>                                          750,279
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  875,899
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               71,709
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             20,662
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (269,855)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (269,855)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (269,855)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.05)                                         
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.05)
        


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-11315

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN L. SULLIVAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:96-CV-234-H (3:92-CR-402-H)

_________________________________________________________________ July 17, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

John L. Sullivan, federal prisoner # 234 57-077, appeals the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Sullivan

argues that the district court erred in failing to conduct an

evidentiary hearing to develop the factual issues raised with

respect to his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and that

the district court erred in granting the government’s motion to

dismiss without ruling on his claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel. He argues that his claims of ineffective assistance of2

counsel are cognizable in this § 2255 proceeding. He argues that

the district court erred in focusing on his claim of improper

application of the sentencing guidelines as the only issue. He

a rgues that he should have received concurrent sentences, and he

argues that if counsel had raised the issue in the district court,

his sentence would have been different.

Sullivan cannot show prejudice due to his counsel’s failure to

raise the issue of concurrent sentencing with the sentencing court.

United States v. Torrez

, 40 F.3d 84, 88 n.2 (5th Cir. 1994); United

States v. McCarthy

, 77 F.3d 522 (1st Cir. 1996), cert. denied

, 117

S.Ct. 771 (1997). Sullivan does not brief his issues relating to

acceptance of responsibility on appeal, a nd so these issues are

considered abandoned. S ee Yohey v. Collins

, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th

Cir. 1993).

A F F I R M E D.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1702

JOSEPH R. ZIEGLER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CHARLES RIDER; JEFFREY BOGGS , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Charleston

. Joseph R. Goodwin , District Judge. ( 2:19

- cv - 00855 )

Submitted : October 20, 2020 Decided: October 23, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ , Circuit Judge , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Joseph R. Ziegler, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Joseph R. Ziegler appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). T he magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed for
failure to st ate a claim. The magistrate judge further advised Ziegler that failure to file timely , specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objection s to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v

. Duffy , 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v . Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 846

- 47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 , 154

- 55 (1985). Although Ziegler received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived appellate review because , as the district court ruled, the objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magi strate judge. See Martin , 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks omitted)).3 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000860713                                      
<NAME>                        Snyder Oil Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1997

<CASH>                                         89,443
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  21,521
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,775
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               113,875
<PP&E>                                         426,981
<DEPRECIATION>                                 142,846
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 546,088
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          57,549
<BONDS>                                        173,636
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       357
<OTHER-SE>                                     263,399
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   546,088
<SALES>                                        214,220
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               255,728
<CGS>                                          122,209
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  162,715
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               12,544
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             23,029
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                57,440
<INCOME-TAX>                                   17,856
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            35,465
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                2,848
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   32,617
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .86
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                   EXHIBIT 12

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
                                        -------------------------------------------------
                                        1998        1999       2000       2001       2002
                                        ----       -----      -----      -----      -----
<S>                                     <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges      5.3x       26.9x      21.0x      22.2x      27.6x
</TABLE>

         For purposes of computing the ratios of earnings to fixed charges,
earnings represent pretax income from continuing operations plus fixed charges.
Fixed charges represent interest expense and the portion of rents representative
of interest related to continuing operations.
#### Noel Estuardo TUCHEZ-ORDONEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-72767.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 10, 2011.

Tamiko Moore, Esquire, Law Office of Tamiko O. Moore, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

*718Oil, Claire Workman, Trial, John Clifford Cunningham, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Noel Estuardo Tuchez-Ordonez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying, as untimely, petitioner’s motion to reopen where the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s final order. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish changed country conditions in Guatemala. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); *Malty v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (“the critical question is ... whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”)

Tuchez-Ordonez’s contention that the BIA failed to properly consider all the evidence submitted with the motion fails because he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3263 Received in Senate (RDS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3263

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 2012

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow the storage and 
 conveyance of nonproject water at the Norman project in Oklahoma, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Lake Thunderbird Efficient Use Act 
of 2012''.

SEC. 2. NORMAN PROJECT, OKLAHOMA.

    Public Law 86-529 (74 Stat. 225) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:

``SEC. 10. LAKE THUNDERBIRD.

    ``(a) In General.--If the Secretary of the Interior determines that 
there is enough excess capacity in the reservoir on the Little River 
known as `Lake Thunderbird' that nonproject water can be stored in Lake 
Thunderbird, the Secretary of the Interior may, in accordance with the 
reclamation laws, amend an existing contract, or enter into 1 or more 
new contracts, with the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District 
for the storage and conveyance of nonproject water in Norman project 
facilities to augment municipal and industrial supplies for the cities 
served by the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District.
    ``(b) Costs.--If any additional infrastructure is needed to enable 
the storage and conveyance of non-project water in Norman project 
facilities under subsection (a) or any other provision of this Act, the 
costs of constructing, operating, and maintaining the infrastructure 
shall be the responsibility of the non-Federal entity contracting with 
the Secretary of the Interior for storage and conveyance rights.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECT.

    Nothing in this Act or an amendment made by this Act authorizes any 
expansion of the storage capacity of Lake Thunderbird.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 5, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Pablo Julian AGRIO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Anthony KANE and Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 07-17310.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 10, 2011.

Pablo Julian Agrio, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Jessica N. Blonien, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Pablo Julian Agrio appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

Agrio contends that the Board’s 2004 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is required to challenge the denial of parole. *See Hayward v. Marshall,*603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). Now the Supreme Court has held that the only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. *See Swarthout v. Cooke,*— U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011). Because Agrio raises no procedural challenges, a COA cannot issue, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name of Corporation                                                    Jurisdiction of Incorporation
-------------------                                                    -----------------------------

UNITED STATES SUBSIDIARIES
--------------------------
<S>                                                                    <C>
Florida Wire and Cable, Inc.                                                    Delaware
Georgetown Steel Corporation                                                    Delaware
GS Technologies Operating Co., Inc.                                             Delaware
ME - West Castings, Inc.                                                        Arizona
ME International, Inc.                                                          Michigan

UNITED STATES JOINT VENTURE
---------------------------
American Iron Reduction LLC (50%)                                               Louisiana

FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES
--------------------
Acerco S.A.                                                                     Peru
Aceros del Sur S.A. (68% directly owned by the company, and
                      8% directly owned by the Company's wholly-
                      owned subsidiary, Acerco S.A.)                            Peru
GS Technologies Europa GmbH                                                     Germany
GST Europa AB                                                                   Sweden
GST Europa S.p.A.                                                               Italy
GST Europe Ltd.                                                                 United Kingdom
GST Europe S.A.                                                                 Belgium
Inversiones en Molienda S.A.                                                    Chile
MolyCop Chile S.A.                                                              Chile
MolyCop Steel, Inc.                                                             Canada
GST Philippines, Inc.                                                           Philippines

FOREIGN JOINT VENTURES
----------------------
Donhad Pty. Ltd. (40%)                                                          Western Australia
Empresa Siderurgica del Peru S.A. (96.46% owned by
                                    Sidercorp S.A.)                             Peru
Sidercorp S.A. (33.3%)                                                          Peru
SIMEC MolyCop S.A. de C.V. (49%)                                                Mexico
MolyCop Canada (50%)                                                            Canada
GSI Lucchini S.p.A. (49%)                                                       Italy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
o        Subsidiaries are wholly-owned unless otherwise noted.
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

In connection with the Annual Report of ITEX Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Steven White, Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to 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.

| | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER          
| | ---------------------------------
| |                                  
| | /s/ Steven White                 
| |                                  
| | Steven White                     
| |                                  
| | October 17, 2006                 
| |                                  
| |                                  
| | INTERIM CHIEF FINANCIAL   OFFICER
| |                                  
| | /s/ Steven White                 
| |                                  
| | Steven White                     
| |                                  
| | October 17,   2006               

---