alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OrgNo OrgName Reason for Action Termination Date

032111 ASL MADAGASCAR FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/08/23

031747 AWS VIETNAM COMPANY LIMITED FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/28/23

030873 BOSHI INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LIMITED FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/14/23

030341 BSI GOTOFREIGHT CO., LTD. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/19/23

030076 CITITRANS (SHENZHEN) INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS CO., LTD VOLUNTARY SURRENDER 10/11/23

030070 DK SAILING CHINA LIMITED FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/05/23

032055 EVERWIN GLOBAL EXPRESS CO., LTD FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/08/23

024028 FRIENCO LOGISTICS CO., LTD. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/05/23

032126 HANA LOGISTICS CO., LTD. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/01/23

030034 HAX‐WELL (SHANGHAI) INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS CO.,LTD. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/15/23

030146 LANNER INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS (SHANGHAI) CO.,LTD. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/23/23

030122 MAXLOAD SHIPPING (NINGBO) CO., LTD FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/08/23

030015 NINGBO SHINE‐HUG INTERNATIONAL FORWARDING AGENCY CO.,LTD FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/25/23

030173 QINGDAO HSTY LOGISTICS CO.,LTD FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/18/23

032104 QINGDAO JIT INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS CO.,LTD. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/26/23

030269 QINGDAO THIRD PARTY GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT CO.,LTD FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/28/23

030028 QINGDAO WINTRUST LOGISTICS CO.,LTD FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/26/23

030206 RHYMING INTERNATIONAL CO.,LTD. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/26/23

032149 SHANGHAI HANWE LOGISTICS CO.,LTD. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/23/23

030107 SHANGHAI INSURANCE INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION CO., LTD. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/01/23

032066 SHANGHAI TILTON INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS CO.,LTD FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/08/23

032159 SPARSH INTERNATIONAL FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/01/23

030132 SPEEDY INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS CO.,LTD. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/08/23

030014 SUMMIT SHIPPING LINE PTE LTD FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/25/23

032179 T. NETWORK INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT CO., LTD. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/04/23

026909 WELLS SHIPPING GROUP LIMITED FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/21/23

026955 YFL GLOBAL FORWARDING LIMITED FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A BOND 10/18/23

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Foreign Registered NVOCC Terminations & Surrenders

October 1, 2023 to October 31, 2023
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Carl Savoy","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/csavoy\/","title":"Commission Meeting Scheduled for July 27, 2022\u00a0","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"bbtiKYfJiA\"><a href=\"\/commission-meeting-scheduled-for-july-27-2022\/\">Commission Meeting Scheduled for July 27, 2022\u00a0<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commission-meeting-scheduled-for-july-27-2022\/embed\/#?secret=bbtiKYfJiA\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commission Meeting Scheduled for July 27, 2022\u00a0” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"bbtiKYfJiA\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
EXHIBIT 99.14a

                           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 Southern Group  International,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  March 31, 2003 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report").  I, Jeanne Bowen,  Secretary  and Treasurer of the company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18 USC  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief.

        (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/ Jeanne Bowen
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Jeanne Bowen, Secretary and Treasurer

Dated:  5/16/03
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Manuel PEREZ-SAENZ, also known as Manuel Saenz, also know as Omar Ovidos Contreas, also known as Omar Contreas, also known as El Baby Saenz, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-3637-cr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 22, 2008.

Colleen P. Cassidy, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.

James G. McGovern, Assistant United States Attorney (David C. James, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), for Benton J. Campbell, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee.

PRESENT: Hon. JON O. NEWMAN, Hon. WALKER, Hon. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Defendant-appellant Manuel PerezSaenz appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Feuerstein, J.), entered on August 23, 2007, convicting him following a guilty plea of illegally reentering the United States after being deported and convicted of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). The district court sentenced Saenz principally to 120 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.

Saenz argues that the district court erred in failing to give him adequate notice of its intent to upwardly depart from the applicable Guidelines range. *See*Fed. R.Crim.P. 32(h) (requiring a district court to give reasonable notice of any ground not identified for departure in either the presentence report or in a party’s submission on which the court is contemplating a departure). The government agrees that the district court failed to give adequate notice of the basis on which it was contemplating a departure. Accordingly, we remand for resentencing to give the defendant an opportunity to respond properly to the sentencing judge’s views. *See United States v. Anati,*457 F.3d 233, 238 (2d Cir.2006).

Saenz also requests that we reassign his case to a different judge. We deny that request, having no reason to believe the *69district judge cannot fairly resentence him on remand. *See id.*If on remand the district court imposes the same sentence on the same grounds after giving the defendant adequate notice, we ask that the court: (1) more fully explain its sentence in light of the Supreme Court’s requirement that the court “consider the extent of the deviation [from the Guidelines range] and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance,” *Gall v. United States,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), and (2) explain why it was expected, under the circumstances, that an undocumented worker would be able to provide documentation for his employment.

For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the judgment of the district court and remand the matter for resentencing.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Chairman Mario Cordero Discusses Sustainable Port Operations at The Association of Pacific Ports\u2019 Conference","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"WNzHoBdCUq\"><a href=\"\/chairman-mario-cordero-discusses-sustainable-port-operations-at-the-association-of-pacific-ports-conference\/\">Chairman Mario Cordero Discusses Sustainable Port Operations at The Association of Pacific Ports\u2019 Conference<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/chairman-mario-cordero-discusses-sustainable-port-operations-at-the-association-of-pacific-ports-conference\/embed\/#?secret=WNzHoBdCUq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Chairman Mario Cordero Discusses Sustainable Port Operations at The Association of Pacific Ports\u2019 Conference” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"WNzHoBdCUq\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raul GARCIAPENA-VIZCARRA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-50087

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 26, 2013.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Philip J. Lynch, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Donna F. Coltharp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, DeMOSS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

*635PER CURIAM: *

Raul Garciapena-Vizcarra challenges the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed for his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. He was sentenced within the guidelines range to 70 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release on each count to run concurrently.

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Garciapena-Vizcarra contends that the drug-trafficking Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, produces a guidelines range that is greater than necessary in a mine-run case such as his because it is not based on empirical data and assumes that a larger quantity of drugs indicates greater culpability. He also points to his lack of criminal history, which he contends indicates a low risk of recidivism; devotion to his family; and remorse as factors that warranted a below-guidelines sentence.

The district court was not required to question the empirical grounding behind § 2D1.1. *See United States v. Duarte,*569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.2009). The drug quantity and Garciapena-Vizcarra’s history and characteristics were before the district court. Yet, the district court imposed a sentence within the guidelines range. We have recognized that “the sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) with respect to a particular defendant.” *United States v. Campos-Maldonado,*531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir.2008). Garciapena-Vizcarra has not demonstrated that the district court failed to give the proper weight to any particular § 3553(a) factor or that his sentence “represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” *United States v. Cooks,*589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir.2009). Therefore, he has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that is accorded to his within-guidelines sentence. *See id.*

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Order entered November 18, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00389-CV

JOHN HURT AND LESLEA HURT, Appellants

V.

AMALENDU GOSWAMI AND HARSHA GOSWAMI, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 003-02059-2020

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ November 17, 2022 unopposed motion to 

extend the deadline for filing their brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the 

brief be filed no later than December 23, 2022.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel NICHERIE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-50155.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2008.*

Filed May 15, 2008.

Steven J. Olson, Esq., Office of U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Daniel Nicherie, San Pedro, CA, pro se.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

The court severs the previously consolidated appeal Nos. 07-50136 and 07-50155.

A review of the record and the opening brief indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The sole issue raised by appellant’s opening brief, filed February 13, 2008, is whether the district court had jurisdiction to rule on appellant’s request for return of attorney’s fees and bond money which appellant believes to be excessive. On February 15, 2008, this court denied appellant’s motion to amend his notice of appeal to include this issue as part of his appeal. Because this appeal presents no further questions which require further argument, we grant appellee’s motion to summarily affirm the district court’s judgment.

The court strikes that part of the previously filed opening brief that addressed the issue of attorney’s fees and bond money in appeal No. 07-50155.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### In the Matter of Richard Lutsic, Appellant, v Shirley Lutsic, Respondent.

[665 NYS2d 112]

Crew III, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Pines, J.), entered June 12, 1996, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, for a downward modification of petitioner’s child support obligation.

Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, petitioner and respondent are the biological parents of twins (born in 1981), both of whom reside with respondent. In January 1990, petitioner was ordered to pay child support for the twins in the amount of $115 per week. Following his loss of employment in December 1994 petitioner, formerly a technical laboratory specialist with International Business Machines, commenced this proceeding seeking a downward modification of his support obligation. The matter proceeded to a hearing at which petitioner, his current spouse and respondent appeared and testified. At the conclusion thereof, the Hearing Examiner granted petitioner’s application and reduced his support obligation to $84 per week, which was based upon income imputed to petitioner in the amount of $17,500 (after deductions for FICA). In response to the objections filed by petitioner, Family Court affirmed the Hearing Examiner’s findings and this appeal by petitioner ensued.

We affirm. As a starting point, we note that petitioner’s primary argument on appeal—that Family Court was without authority to impute income to him under the Child Support Standards Act (Family Ct Act § 413) absent some indication that he deliberately reduced his income to avoid his child support obligation or actually possessed other resources, such as nonincome producing assets, that could be used to satisfy his support obligation—previously has been considered and rejected by this Court *(see, Matter of Darling v Darling,*220 AD2d 858, 859). Both Family Court Act § 413 (1) (a) and Domestic Relations Law § 32 (3) impose a support obligation upon parents who are “possessed of sufficient means *or able to earn*
      *638
      *such means”*(emphasis supplied). Thus, a parent’s child support obligation is not necessarily determined by his or her existing financial situation but, rather, by his or her ability to provide support *(see, Matter of Collins v Collins,*241 AD2d 725, 727).

Even accepting that petitioner could not secure comparable employment in Broome County at a rate commensurate with his final salary prior to termination (approximately $40,000), the record fully supports a finding that petitioner indeed was employable, and we find no error in Family Court’s decision to impute income to petitioner in the amount of $17,500 for purposes of determining his child support obligation. Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Robert Klein, President and Chief Executive Officer of Legacy Mining Ltd.,  a Nevada Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



1.      I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 of Legacy Mining Ltd.;



2.      Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 annual report;



3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 - 14 and 15d - 14) for the registrant and we have:



a.      designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;



b.      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within September 30, 2006 prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and



c.      presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



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



a.      All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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; and

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



Date: September 14, 2007





/s/ Robert Klein

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

Robert Klein

President and Chief Executive Officer