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

###### Office of Foreign Assets Control

# AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the name of a person whose property and interests in property have been unblocked pursuant to Executive Order 13581 of July 24, 2011, “Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations.”

# DATES:

OFAC's actions described in this notice were effective on June 21, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202-622-2410.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Electronic Availability

                    The list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available from OFAC's Web site at                     *http://www.treasury.gov/​ofac.*

## Notice of OFAC Actions

On June 21, 2017, OFAC removed from the SDN List the person listed below, whose property and interests in property were blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13581.

## Individual

1. DRISCOLL, Mary Ann, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; DOB 01 Jun 1950 to 30 Jun 1950; nationality Canada (individual) [TCO] (Linked To: CHEXX INC.; Linked To: INDIAN RIVER (UK) LTD.; Linked To: PACNET GROUP).

Dated: June 21, 2017.

Andrea Gacki

Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.

# Editorial Note:

This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on Friday, October 6, 2017.

[FR Doc. 2017-22097 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Tim Leong, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB forthe period ended June 30, 2003 of SE Global Equities Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis quarterly report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport; 

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant andhave:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosurecontrols and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date ofthis quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors andthe audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for theregistrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant'sinternal controls; and

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

Date: August 14, 2003

          /s/ Tim Leong**By**:_____________________________ **    Tim Leong, Chief Financial Officer**
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 305 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 305

 To amend title 49, United States Code, to prohibit the transportation 
 of horses in interstate transportation in a motor vehicle containing 
           two or more levels stacked on top of one another.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2009

  Mr. Kirk (for himself, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Whitfield) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, to prohibit the transportation 
 of horses in interstate transportation in a motor vehicle containing 
           two or more levels stacked on top of one another.

    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 ``Horse Transportation Safety Act of 
2009''.

SEC. 2. TRANSPORTATION OF HORSES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 805 of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 80505. Transportation of horses
    ``(a) Prohibition.--No person may transport, or cause to be 
transported, a horse from a place in a State, the District of Columbia, 
or a territory or possession of the United States through or to a place 
in another State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or 
possession of the United States in a motor vehicle containing two or 
more levels stacked on top of one another.
    ``(b) Civil Penalty.--A person that knowingly violates this section 
is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of at 
least $100 but not more than $500 for each violation. A separate 
violation occurs under this section for each horse that is transported, 
or caused to be transported, in violation of this section. On learning 
of a violation, the Attorney General shall bring a civil action to 
collect the penalty in the district court of the United States for the 
judicial district in which the violation occurred or the defendant 
resides or does business.
    ``(c) Motor Vehicle Defined.--In this section, the term `motor 
vehicle' means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and 
manufactured primarily for use on public highways, but does not include 
a vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.
    ``(d) Relationship to Other Laws.--The penalty provided under this 
section shall be in addition to a penalty or remedy available under any 
other law or common law.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is amended 
by adding at the end the following:

``80505. Transportation of horses.''.
                                 <all>
```
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 Form 10-K of Consolidated Water Co. Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Frederick W. McTaggart, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 result of operations of the Company.





Date: March 16, 2011
By:
/s/ Frederick W. McTaggartName:
Frederick W. McTaggartTitle:
Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit
32.1

STATEMENT
FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE 
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The
undersigned, Charles M. Sprock, is the President and Chief Executive Officer of
Rome Bancorp, Inc. (the Registrant). This statement is being furnished in
connection with the filing by the Company of the Registrants Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the Report).

By
execution of this statement, I certify that:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | A) | the Report fully
 complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and                                                                 
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
| | B) | the information
 contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
 financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant as of the
 dates and for the periods covered by the Report.

This
statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this
statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended
that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|                      |                                       | 
|--------------------- | ------------------------------------- | 
|Date: August 13, 2010 | /s/ Charles M. Sprock                 | 
|                      |                                       | 
|                      | Charles M. Sprock                     | 
|                      | President and Chief Executive Officer

---
#### Francisco Noyola HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-70374.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 15, 2011.

Francisco Noyola Hernandez, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.

Lisa Damiano, Trial, 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: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, 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 **

Francisco Noyola Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *He v. Gonzales,*501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez’s motion to reopen as untimely and successive because he filed his second motion to reopen over 20 months after the BIA’s final administrative decision, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and because Hernandez failed to demonstrate changed country conditions to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and numerical limits for motions to reopen, *see 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); *Lin v. Holder,*588 F.3d 981, 986, 986-989 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Evelyn Melani Cornejo RODRIGUEZ, aka Melani Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-70153.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 10, 2011.

*699Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Andrew B. Insenga, Trial, Theo Nickerson, Esquire, OIL, Yamileth G. Handuber, Trial, William Charles Peachey, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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 **

Evelyn Melani Cornejo Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s denial of petitioner’s application for withholding of removal.

Where the BIA summarily affirms the Id’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency decision. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir.2006).

Petitioner contends that she was entitled to withholding relief based on her membership in a social group consisting of a family who were victimized by the gangs. We need not resolve this issue because we conclude that the IJ correctly determined that petitioner could relocate to another part of El Salvador. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (“[A]n individual who can relocate safely within his home country ordinarily cannot qualify for asylum”) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(l)(i)(B)). The IJ, therefore, did not err in denying petitioner’s application for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye,*453 F.3d at 1190.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Narval Narcissi, Appellant.

[858 NYS2d 905]

by the Application by theappellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated August 4, 2003 *(People v Narcissi,*
      *739307 AD2d 1076 [2003]), affirming a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County, imposed June 14, 2001.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see *Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz, 2*NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Rivera, Spolzino and Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,753
<ALLOWANCES>                                        71
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,715
<PP&E>                                          43,901
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,349
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,326
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,316
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,531
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,326
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,365
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   77,978
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,464
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,941)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,321
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,620)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,620)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.67)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-19475, 333-06569, and 33-87826) and on Form S-3 (No.
333-37529) of Aasche Transportation Services, Inc. and in the related
Prospectus of our report dated February 27, 1998, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Aasche Transportation Services, Inc.,
included in the Annual Report to Shareholders (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1997.

/s/ Ernst & Young, LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 30, 1998
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark Richards, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 144]

—Judgment, *107Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Kahn, J.), rendered May 31, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court followed proper procedures *(see, People v Payne,*88 NY2d 172) and properly seated a venireperson whom defense counsel had sought to challenge peremptorily. The court’s implicit finding that defendant’s proffered race-neutral explanations were pretextual is supported by the record. Having given both parties ample opportunity to propound their positions, the trial court was entitled to rule promptly, as it did, on the question of pretext *(People v Santana,*235 AD2d 265, *lv denied*89 NY2d 1015).

The court properly closed the courtroom during the trial testimony of the undercover officer, since that officer testified at the *Hinton*hearing that he would still be working in an undercover capacity in the area where defendant was arrested, that he was participating in on-going investigations in that area and that he feared for his safety in the event that his identity were to be revealed while testifying in an open courtroom *(People v Harrison,*243 AD2d 315). Since defense counsel never suggested any reasonable alternatives to closure, despite the court’s implicit solicitation of suggestions from counsel, the court itself was not required to advance any alternatives *(supra).*

The court properly admitted cash that was recovered from defendant’s person, since it was probative of the material issue of whether defendant had intent to sell the vials of cocaine that were recovered from his accomplice *(see, People v Jackson,*203 AD2d 213, *lv denied*83 NY2d 968), as well as brief testimony concerning the various roles in a typical street-level drug operation, since that background was relevant to the central issue of defendant’s participation *(People v Reed,*215 AD2d 209, *lv denied*86 NY2d 801).

Since defendant never moved pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, there has been no opportunity for trial counsel to explain his trial tactics *(see, People v Love,*57 NY2d 998). In any event, based on the existing record, trial counsel provided meaningful representation *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.
#### Robert Michael JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY and Bill Lockyer, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 06-56738.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*755Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 10, 2011.

Robert Michael Johnson, Vacaville, CA, pro se.

Jane Catherine Malich, Esq., AGCA— Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, 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 Robert Michael Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

Johnson contends that the Board’s 2003 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 Johnson 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.