alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22297]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

[Public Notice 2017-6011]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Comments Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Submission for OMB review and comments request.

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

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), as a part 
of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, 
invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the 
proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995.
    Our customers will be able to submit this form on paper or 
electronically. This form is used by insurance brokers to register with 
Export-Import Bank. It provides EXIM staff with the information 
necessary to make a determination of the eligibility of the broker to 
receive commission payments under Export-Import Bank's credit insurance 
programs.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 15, 2017 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on 
www.regulations.gov or by mail to Mia Johnson, Export-Import Bank of 
the United States, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571. Form can 
be viewed at https://www.exim.gov/sites/default/files/pub/pending/eib92-79.pdf.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title and Form Number: EIB 92-79 Broker Registration Form.
    Form Title: EIB 92-79 Broker Registration Form.
    OMB Number: 3048-0024.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Need and Use: This form is used by insurance brokers to register 
with Export Import Bank. The form provides Export Import Bank staff 
with the information necessary to make a determination of the 
eligibility of the broker to receive commission payments under Export 
Import Bank's credit insurance programs.
    Affected Public: This form affects entities engaged in brokering 
export credit insurance policies.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 50.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 minutes.
    Frequency of Reporting or Use: Once every three years.
    Government Expenses:
    Review Time per Response: 2 hours.
    Reviewing Time per Year: 100 hours.
    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.
    Average Cost per Year: $4,250.
    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.
    Total Government Cost: $5,100.

Bassam Doughman,
IT Specialist.
[FR Doc. 2017-22297 Filed 10-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted
Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Vincent C. Smith, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of Quest Software, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Quest Software, Inc.



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: December 31, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Vincent C. Smith
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Name:                |  | Vincent C. Smith       
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Title:               |  | Chief Executive Officer
_____________ No. 96-3078SD

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of South Dakota. Barry Douglas Stead, also * known as Barry D. Snead, also * [UNPUBLISHED] known as Garitano, also known * as Horelio Garitano, * * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: February 13, 1997 Filed: March 6, 1997

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM.
BarryDouglas Stead challenges the sufficiency of the evidence t o support his convictio ns for second-degree murder and assaulting a federal officer. Contrary to Stead’s view, the record c ontains strong evidence of Stead’s guilt. Essentially, Stead asks this court to reexamine conflictin g testimony , a task that can only be resolved by the jury. Here , notwithstanding a ful l array of defensive instructions, the jury resolved the conflicts in favor of the Government, and there was sufficient evidenc e for the j ury to reach its verdicts. Stead also challenges the sentenc e imposed by the district court. Although Stead argues the district court improperlyfailed to depart downward, the district court made clear that it did not find a dow nward departure warranted by the facts in this case. Thus, the district court’s refusal to depart is a

### -2-

nonreviewable exercise of discretion. We affirm Stead’s convictions and sentence. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

JOHNR. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result and in the judgment in this case.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Martin L. Santini et al., Respondents, v Alexander Grant & Company et al., Appellants.

[664 NYS2d 784]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about January 29, 1997, which granted defendants’ motion for disclosure sanctions only to the extent of conditionally precluding plaintiffs from offering into evidence the missing pages of certain computer runs unless they were produced by a date certain, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to preclude plaintiffs from introducing any evidence that was not disclosed prior to entry of the above-described order, and otherwise affirmed, with costs payable to defendants.

The willful and contumacious character of plaintiffs’ failure *31to produce the missing pages is evident from their noncompliance with three court orders, the last of which specifically directed them to produce the subject pages, their failure to respond to correspondence from defendants regarding the missing pages and their failure to offer any credible excuse for these defaults *(see, Glasburgh v Port Auth.,*193 AD2d 441; *Mills v Ducille,*170 AD2d 657, 658). Under these circumstances, we find that plaintiffs should be precluded from introducing the documents into evidence. While preclusion is obviously a harsh remedy, it is clearly warranted where repeated, legitimate demands on the part of an adversary, as well as orders of the court, are met with dissimulation rather than compliance. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ACTIVE
SOFTWARE, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPT. 30,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          34,705
<SECURITIES>                                     9,191
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,978
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (236)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,854
<PP&E>                                           3,167
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,370)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,786
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        71,897
<OTHER-SE>                                     (29,730)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    50,950
<SALES>                                         10,997
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,834
<CGS>                                              868
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,796
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    50
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  62
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,142)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,142)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,142)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.01)


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Rafael Tavares, Petitioner, v Richard Piatek, as Hearing Officer at the Sullivan Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 803]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Sullivan County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in four misbehavior reports with violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting inmates from possessing weapons, engaging in violent conduct, making threats, destroying State property, committing arson and assaulting staff in connection with incidents that occurred in April 1996 while petitioner was incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility in Dutchess County. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all charges; upon administrative review, however, the decision was reversed and a new hearing was ordered. A second hearing resulted in a decision finding petitioner guilty of all but the assault on staff charge. The decision was administratively affirmed although the penalty imposed was modified. Petitioner now argues that the Commissioner of Correctional Services erred in ordering a rehearing, contending that the charges should have been dismissed because the first hearing was reversed due to constitutional violations. We do not agree. Where, as here, the procedural errors in the first hearing are discovered before a final administrative determination is rendered, a new hearing to correct such errors is proper, even where the errors are of constitutional dimension *(see, Matter of Dawes v Selsky,*233 AD2d 598; *Matter of Arroyo v Coombe,*233 AD2d 638; *Matter of Brodie v Selsky,*203 AD2d 671).

The remaining contentions advanced by petitioner have been examined and found to be either unpreserved for our review or lacking in merit. As a final note, however, we do find that the record contains substantial evidence to support the determination reached in the second hearing.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00265

- CV

I N THE I NTEREST OF A.S.

- J., J.W., AND

J.W., C HILDREN §

§

§

§ On Appeal from 323rd District Court

of Tarrant County (323

- 104719

- 17)

September 20, 2018

Opinion by Ju stice Gabriel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
#### Orlando RIVERA, Petitioner, v. Robert J. HENDERSON, Superintendent, Auburn Correctional Facility, Robert Abrams, Attorney General of the State of New York, and Elizabeth Holtzman, District Attorney, Kings County, Respondents.

No. 88 C 1715.

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

June 20, 1988.

Orlando Rivera, Coxsackie, N.Y., petitioner pro se.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NICKERSON, District Judge.

Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After a jury trial in Kings County, New York, petitioner was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentenced on July 25, 1983, as a second felony offender to a term of imprisonment of seven and one-half to fifteen years.

The present petition raises four claims of error: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to pursue the repugnancy of verdicts claim; (2) prejudice stemming from the prosecution’s failure to present at trial an eyewitness to the crime; (3) denial of his “right to tell the whole truth” when he took the stand at trial apparently because of an adverse evidentiary ruling, and (4) failure of the People to file a predicate felony statement.

Petitioner filed a prior application raising the first, second, and third claims. This court dismissed the petition because the second and third claims had not been exhausted in state court. *Rivera v. Lacy,*87 C 1720 (Sept. 23,1987) [available on WEST-*1192LAW, 1987 WL 18169]. Subsequently, petitioner raised the second and third claims in a proceeding in Supreme Court, Kings County, pursuant to section 440.10 of the Criminal Procedure Law (C.P.L.). Petitioner also raised the instant petition’s fourth claim pursuant to C.P.L. § 440.20. On February 10, 1988, the Supreme Court denied both petitions.

The petition indicates that petitioner did not seek leave to appeal these decisions to the Appellate Division. New York law provides such an opportunity, C.P.L. §§ 450.-15(1), (2), and failure to seek leave to appeal renders these claims unexhausted. *See Klein v. Harris,*667 F.2d 274, 282-83 (2d Cir.1981). Although petitioner’s first claim has been exhausted, the presence of unexhausted claims requires dismissal of the entire petition. *Rose v. Lundy,*455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982).

Petitioner may file and serve within sixty days of receipt of this order an amended petition presenting only his exhausted claim, or he may return to the state courts and try to exhaust whatever remedies may be available to him with respect to the three presently unexhausted claims.

Petition dismissed. So ordered.
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 Quarterly Report of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Terry M. Copeland, President and CEO of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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/  Terry
      M. CopelandTerry
      M. Copeland, President and CEO
              November 7,
2008
Exhibit
32.2





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 Quarterly Report of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, John Fallini, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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/  John
      FalliniJohn
      Fallini, Chief Financial Officer
              November 7,
2008
[No. 42452-5-II.

Division Two.

October 2, 2012.]

#### Potelco, Inc., *Appellant,*v. The Department of Labor and Industries, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kitsap County, No. 09-2-00677-8, Theodore F. Spearman, J., entered July 5,2011 *.Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Van Deren, J.,

concurred in by Worswick, C.J., and Hunt, J.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-2084

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from United States 

* District Court of the Western

John D. Berry, also known as * District of Missouri.

Tony A. Ruff, also known as *

Darrell L. Berry, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 14, 2011

Filed: April 6, 2011

___________

Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Berry appeals from the sentence of 18 months imposed on him for

committing a crime while on supervised release following his conviction for being a

felon in possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He asserts that the

sentence was unreasonable. We disagree and affirm.
The district court1

 found, and Mr. Berry admitted, that Mr. Berry repeatedly

threatened to harm or kill a woman resident at a re-entry center. The policy statements

in Chapter 7 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which apply to revocations

of supervised release, recommend a sentence of 7 to 13 months' imprisonment in the

circumstances of this case. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4. But these policy statements, though

they must be taken into account in fixing a sentence, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(B),

are not binding, and we review a sentence imposed for the violation of supervised

release for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Thunder, 553 F.3d 605, 607

(8th Cir. 2009). Here, the sentencing record reveals that the district court was well

aware of all the relevant considerations in § 3553(a) that bear on sentencing following

revocation of supervised release, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), and carefully weighed them

in fixing the sentence. In particular, the court alluded to Mr. Berry's extensive

criminal history, the likelihood that he would commit further crimes, and the need to

protect the public. The nature of the crimes that Mr. Berry committed on supervised

release also influenced the district court's decision, because Mr. Berry's criminal

history included sexual assaults. Mr. Berry, moreover, displayed truculence at

sentencing, which provided evidence of his incorrigibility. There is no abuse of

discretion here. See Thunder, 553 F.3d at 608-09.

Affirmed. 

______________________________

1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          14,938                  17,299
<SECURITIES>                                    16,916                  19,906
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,929                   9,979
<ALLOWANCES>                                       593                     493
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,821                  47,644
<PP&E>                                           4,482                   3,543
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,919                   1,592
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,816                  51,822
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,547                  10,595
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       118,173                  71,900
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    96,816                  51,822
<SALES>                                         13,595                   3,562
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,595                   3,562
<CGS>                                            2,970                   1,379
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,900                   4,945
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (480)                    (21)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,795)                 (2,741)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,795)                 (2,741)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,795)                 (2,741)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.25)                  (0.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.25)                  (0.60)


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.2





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





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with the filing by Intermost
Corporation, a Wyoming Corporation (the “Company”) with the Securities and
Exchange Commission of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Six months
ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”), the undersigned, Thomas Lee, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, that to the best of his
knowledge:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      and




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





This
certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be
deemed a part of this Report, nor is it to be deemed to be “filed” for any
purpose whatsoever.





Date:  February
      12, 2011By:
            /s/ Thomas
      LeeThomas
      LeeChief
      Financial Officer





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