alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 49425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23103]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Bureau of Labor Statistics


 Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting and Agenda

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics Technical Advisory Committee will 
meet on Friday, November 17, 2017. The meeting will be held from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:15 p.m. in the Postal Square Building, 2 Massachusetts Avenue 
NE., Washington, DC.
    The Committee provides advice and makes recommendations to the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on technical aspects of data 
collection and the formulation of economic measures and makes 
recommendations on areas of research. The BLS presents issues and then 
draws on the expertise of Committee members representing specialized 
fields within the academic disciplines of economics, statistics, and 
survey design.
    The meeting will be held in Rooms 1, 2, and 3 of the Postal Square 
Building Janet Norwood Conference Center. The schedule and agenda for 
the meeting are as follows:

8:30 a.m. Acting Commissioner's Welcome and Review of Agency 
Developments
9:00 a.m. Survey of Employer Provided Training
11:00 a.m. Commission on Evidence Based Policy-Making
1:00 p.m. Experimental New Vehicle Price Indexes
2:45 p.m. Using Modeled Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages as a 
Sampling Frame for the Occupational Requirements Survey
4:15 p.m. Approximate conclusion

    The meeting is open to the public. Any questions concerning the 
meeting should be directed to Sarah Dale, Bureau of Labor Statistics 
Technical Advisory Committee, at 202-691-5643 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b2f2a272e65382a392a230b292738652c243d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="90f4f1fcf5bee3f1e2f1f8d0f2fce3bef7ffe6">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Individuals who require special accommodations should contact Ms. Dale 
at least two days prior to the meeting date.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of October 2017.
Kimberley D. Hill,
Chief, Division of Management Systems.
[FR Doc. 2017-23103 Filed 10-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-24-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**UNDER**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

|                                   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|----------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: May                10, 2006 |   | /s/                MICHAEL R. HAYNES                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|                                   |   | Michael                R. Haynes                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|                                   |   | Chief                Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|                                   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|                                   |   | A                signed original of this written statement required by Section 906                has been                provided to Collectors Universe, Inc. and will be retained by Collectors                Universe, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission                or                its staff upon request. |
[EXHIBIT 10.2]


February 3, 2007


RE: Acknowledgement of Continuation of Genova Executive Consulting Services
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      This letter confirms that Third-Order Nanotechnologies has agreed to
continue the engagement of Ron Genova's services as Interim CEO, as defined
in the prior Consulting Agreement of record, until adequate funding
(>$1M cum) is raised through a 506 offering or other instrument. Third-Order
agreed to continue to remunerate Mr. Genova at his prior billing rate of
$8,000/month, and Mr. Genova agreed to defer payment for services from
September, 2006 through the month when funding is received (projected to
be February, 2007). Third-Order also agreed to reimburse Mr. Genova for
all expenses incurred on behalf of the Company during the aforementioned
period.  Payment shall be made to Mr. Genova within 15 days after receipt
of funding. Also, per prior verbal assurance from Frederick Goetz, Jr.,
Mr. Genova is entitled to a bonus payment of $50,000.00 for services
rendered to date. This bonus has been accrued and will be paid within
15 days after funding is received.


Genova Executive Business Consulting



/s/Ron Genova
-----------------------
Ron Genova - Principal





Third-Order Nanotechnologies, Inc.



/s/Frederick J. Goetz
----------------------------------------
Frederick J. Goetz - President, Director
Order entered March 29, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 00224
- CR
JORGE SUAREZ, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 11 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Caus e No. MA10
- 72305
- N 

### O RDER
On January 14, 2013, this Court ordered the court reporter to file the reporter’s record within thirty days. When we did not receive the record by February 22, 2013, we ordered c ourt

r eporter Vearneas Faggett to file the report er’s record within fifteen days. On March 14, 2013, Ms. Faggett was ordered to file the reporter’s record within ten days. In the March 14, 2013 order, we warned Ms. Faggett that if she did not file the record within the time specified, we would order th at she not sit until she filed the record in this case. Ms. Faggett has not filed the reporter’s record as ordered. Instead, she has filed a request for a thirty

- day extension.
We DENY Vearneas Faggett’s March 22, 2013 request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record.We ORDER court reporter Vearneas Faggett to file, within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order, the reporter’s record, including all exhibits, in the above

- styled case. We further ORDER that Vearneas Faggett not sit as a cou rt reporter until sh e has complied with this order.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Honorable Elizabeth Frizzell, Presiding Judge of County Criminal Court No. 11; court reporter Vearneas Faggett; couns el for the parties; and the Dallas County Auditor’s Office.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nina K. RAJWANI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10636.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 25, 2008.

Bret E. Helmer, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Nina K. Rajwani, Oklahoma City, OK, pro se.

*389Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Nina Rajwani has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Rajwani has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Rajwani’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 17 CFR 240.13(a)-14(a)
(SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Cardinal Ethanol, LLC;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant, as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;
 b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and
 c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants fourth fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial
reporting.
 Date:      December 22, 2008
    /s/ Techia BrewerTechia Brewer, (Principal Financial Officer)
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 annual report of Newtown Lane Marketing, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Arnold P. Kling, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, as amended; and





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





Dated: June 16, 2011





/s/ Arnold P. KlingArnold P. KlingPresident(Principal Executive Officer)





A signed original of this certification 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.
NOTE                    Exhibit 10.17

$2,000                                                        Date: May 5, 2000


     FOR VALUE RECEIVED,  NextNet.com,  Inc., the undersigned ("Payor"),  hereby
promises to pay to the order of Richard J. Margulies, an individual, ("Holder"),
the principal amount of $2,000.00 payable twenty four (24) months after the date
first set forth above. The principal amount hereof from time to time outstanding
shall bear  interest at the rate of six percent  (6%) per annum,  payable on the
date set forth  above.  All payments  hereunder  shall be in lawful money of the
United  States of America at the address of the Holder hereof or at such address
as shall be specified by the Holder to NextNet.com, Inc.

     If any default shall be made in the payment of interest or principal,  then
the Holder, by written notice to the Payor, may exercise all of its legal rights
to collect  the  balance due unless  within  five (5)  business  days after such
notice the default  shall be cured by Payor.  Such notice  shall be deemed given
three (3) days after having been  deposited in the United  States Mail  properly
addressed  and  sent by  registered  mail to the  particular  addressee,  return
receipt requested.

     Prepayments may be made in this note  voluntarily at any time and from time
to time, without penalty.



                                                     NextNet.com, Inc.


                                                     BY:/s/Larry Weinstein
                                                     ---------------------
                                                           Larry Weinstein
                                                           President

                                        4
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcellus Levan HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-15196

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 14, 2008.

John P. Manning, Esq., Beaverton, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Kathryn P. Salyer, Esq., Farleigh, Wada & Witt, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Adam M. Hames, appointed counsel for Marcellus Levan Henderson in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and has filed a brief pursuant to *An-ders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because *921independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Henderson’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED. We also DENY Henderson’s motions to appoint new counsel and to file a supplemental brief.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7150

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO CARRILLO, a/k/a Kiko,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. William L. Osteen, Sr.,

District Judge. (CR-91-256-S)

Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francisco Carrillo, Appellant Pro Se. David Bernard Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* For the purposes of this appeal we assume that the date

Appellant wrote on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it

would have been submitted to prison authorities. See Houston v.

Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods

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)). Parties to civil actions have

sixty days within which to file in the district court notices of

appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The

only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court

extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on June 9, 1995; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on July 19, 1996. Appellant's

failure to file a timely notice of appeal* or to obtain either an

extension or a reopening of the appeal period leaves this court

without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal.

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 deci-
3

sional process. The motion for clarification and equitable relief

is denied.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 33.3**




**Management’s
      Assertion on**


**Compliance
      with Regulation AB Criteria**




**ASSERTION
      OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA**





The
      Bank
      of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N. A.(collectively, the
      “Company”) provides this platform-level assessment of compliance with the
      servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission.





Management
      has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable in regards
      to the following servicing platform for the following period:





Platform :
      Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under
      the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential mortgage-backed securities and
      other mortgage-related asset-backed securities issued on or after January 1,
      2006 (and like-kind transactions issued prior to January 1, 2006) for which
      the
      Company provides trustee, securities administration, paying agent or custodial
      services. The platform includes like kind transactions for which the Company
      provided trustee, securities administrator, paying agent or custodial services
      as a result of the Company’s acquisition as of October 1, 2006 of portions of
      JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s corporate trust business, including structured
      finance agency and trust transactions.





Applicable
      Servicing Criteria :
      All
      servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), to the extent required by the
      related transaction agreements as to any transaction, except for the following
      criteria: 1122 (d) (1)(ii), (iii), (iv), (4) (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii),
      (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii).





Period :
      Twelve
      months ended December 31, 2006.





With
      respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the following
      assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing
      Criteria:


· The
        Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
        Servicing Criteria.





· The
      Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing
      Criteria.





·A s
      of
      December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material compliance
      with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.





Ernst
      & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an
      attestation report with respect to the Company’s foregoing assessment of
      compliance.




The
                Bank of New York
            
            The
                Bank of New YorkThe
                Bank of New York Trust
            
            The
                Bank of New York TrustCompany,
                N.A.
            
            Company,
                N.A.sign_robert
            
            sign_patrickRobert L. Griffin
              Authorized Signer
            
            Patrick J. Tadie
              Authorized
                Signer




March
      1,
      2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alonza Alston, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 405]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.), rendered May 3, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The challenged portions of the People’s summation do not warrant reversal. The court’s curative action obviated any prejudice arising from the prosecutor’s summation comments.

Defendant failed to create an adequate record regarding the ethnic makeup of the jury panel. This precludes review of his claim, made before the trial court only after jury selection had been completed, that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges to remove the only two African-American males from the panel *(see, People v Millan,*216 AD2d 93, 94, *lv denied*86 NY2d 798). In any event, the court properly concluded that the prosecutor’s multiple stated grounds for the exercise of a peremptory challenge against each of the two individuals in question were non-pretextual *(see, Purkett v Elem,*514 US 765; *People v Hernandez,*75 NY2d 350, *affd*500 US 352). None of the unchallenged prospective jurors possessed the same combinations of characteristics as the venirepersons in question. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.