alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-2390

ASIF BARYALAI,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A77-246-624)

Submitted: August 26, 2003 Decided: November 17, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michel M. Hadeed, Jr., BECKER, HADEED, KELLOGG & BERRY, P.C.,

Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr.,

Assistant Attorney General, John C. Cunningham, Senior Litigation

Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Asif Baryalai, a native and citizen of Afghanistan, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“Board”). The order affirmed, without opinion, the immigration

judge’s order denying Baryalai’s applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture. 

The decision to grant or deny asylum relief is conclusive

“unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.”

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000). We conclude that the record

supports the immigration judge’s conclusion that Baryalai failed to

establish his eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a)

(2003); Gonahasa v. INS, 181 F.3d 538, 541 (4th Cir. 1999). As the

decision in this case is not manifestly contrary to law, we cannot

grant the relief that Baryalai seeks. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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 decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
1

 FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

 Office of the Secretary

 800 North Capitol Street, N.W.

 Washington, DC 20573-0001

Phone: (202) 523-5725

Fax: (202) 523-0014

E-mail: Secretary@fmc.gov

March 27, 2007

The Honorable Russell D. Feingold

United States Senate

506 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Feingold:

Section 641 of The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 requires the head of each 

Federal agency to report to Congress on the amount of acquisitions made by the agency from 

entities that manufacture articles, materials, or supplies outside of the United States, and on 

whether any waivers of the requirements contained in the Buy American Act had been granted 

with respect to such articles, materials or supplies, and to provide a summary of the total 

procurement funds spent on goods manufactured in the United States versus funds spent on 

goods manufactured outside of the United States. This letter serves as the report of the Federal 

Maritime Commission (“Commission”) for fiscal year 2006.

As reported to the Federal Procurement Data Center, the Commission obligated 

$302,224 between October 1, 2005, and September 30, 2006, on goods under the different 

manufacturing categories. Most goods were acquired using General Services Administration 

(“GSA”) Federal Supply Schedule vendors. GSA requires compliance with the Buy American 

Act requirements in its contracting process. A limited number of publication and information 

technology product purchases were made subject to the Buy American Act exceptions (i.e., 

non-availability in the United States or information technology that is a commercial item). 

No waivers have been granted with respect to such articles, materials or supplies under 

the Buy American Act (41 USC 10(a) et seq.).

Copies of this report are being distributed to the Senate Transportation, Housing and 

Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, and to the House 

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations 

Subcommittee. 
2

Section 641 requires that each Federal agency submitting a report shall make the report 

publicly available to the maximum extent practicable. In compliance with this provision, the 

Commission will place the report on the its website at www.fmc.gov.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Peter J. King, the 

Commission’s Acting Director of Administration, at (202) 523-5800.

Sincerely,

Bryant L. VanBrakle

Secretary

cc: Senate Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee

House Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Windbush, Appellant.

[609 NYS2d 53]

—Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.), rendered November 18, 1992, convicting him of bail jumping in the second degree under Indictment No. 695/92, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court, also rendered November 18, 1992, convicting him of burglary in the second degree under Indictment No. 1803/90, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal under Indictment No. 695/ 92 brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by the defendant to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant was arrested on a bench warrant regarding a prior pending unrelated charge of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle upon which the defendant was represented by counsel. After the defendant was read his *Miranda*rights, he waived his rights and made statements regarding the instant charge of burglary in the second degree. The defendant was not questioned about the prior pending unrelated charge. Accordingly, the defendant effectively waived his *Miranda*rights, and the hearing court properly denied suppression of the defendant’s statements *(see, People v Cawley,*76 NY2d 331; *People v Scott,*197 AD2d 646; *People v Torres,*165 AD2d 771).

*528Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom *(see, People v Way,*59 NY2d 361; *People v Montanez,*41 NY2d 53, 57), we conclude that the defendant’s guilt was established by evidence that (1) the burglarized house appeared to have been broken into, (2) the defendant stipulated that the fingerprints found inside the house on a kitchen cabinet were his fingerprints, (3) the defendant was not authorized to enter the house, and (4) numerous items of property were missing from the house *(see, People v Thomas,*128 AD2d 743).

Further, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the house was a "dwelling”, which is defined as "a building which is usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night” (Penal Law § 140.00 [3]; *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620; *People v Covington,*199 AD2d 528).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.
#### PARKER METAL GOODS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. R. M. S. ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

May 27, 1965.

Irving Seidman, New York City, for plaintiff.

Hubbell, Cohen, Stiefel & Fiddler, New York City, for defendant.

CASHIN, District Judge.

The complaint in this action alleges two causes of action. In the first, the plaintiff charges patent infringement. In the second, it alleges unfair competition.

The defendant moves to dismiss the latter cause on the basis of two recent Supreme Court decisions. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225, 84 S.Ct. 784, 11 L.Ed.2d 661 (1964); Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, 376 U.S. 234, 84 S.Ct. 779, 11 L.Ed.2d 669 (1964).

In the Compco case the Court held, at page 237, 84 S.Ct. at page 782:

> “ * * * Today we have held in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. [supra], that when an article is unprotected by a patent or a copyright, state law may not forbid others to copy that article. To forbid copying would interfere with the federal policy, found in Art. I, § 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution and in the implementing federal statutes, of allowing free access to copy whatever the federal patent and copyright laws leave in the public domain. * * ”

The defendant claims that the plaintiff’s second cause is based solely on invalid state prohibitions and must be dismissed.

In both the Sears and Compco cases, the Court noted that the federal patent laws do not prevent the states from imposing liability upon a manufacturer who deceives the public by palming off his goods as those of another. Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, supra, at page 238. At trial, the plaintiff in this action may prove “copying” and nothing more. On the other hand, the second cause of action is phrased broadly enough to permit the plaintiff to prove “palming off” or some other competitive tort which remains unaffected by the Supreme Court holdings. The second cause of action states a claim under which legal relief may be granted, and it cannot be dismissed at this time.

Even assuming that the plaintiff’s cause is limited to “copying”, there is an alternative reason for denying the defendant’s motion. The plaintiff's patents have not yet been adjudicated valid or invalid. That issue must wait for *16trial. The Compeo and Sears cases held that when an article is *unpatented,*a state may not prohibit the copying of the article or award damages for such copying. This holding may, however, be expressive of a broader federal policy which would prevent a state from imposing liability for the copying of a *patented*article as well. Should the plaintiff’s patents be held invalid, and the essence of the second cause is “copying”’ then comment upon the scope of this new federal policy would be unnecessary in this case. It is inappropriate for this court to make rulings in this delicate area which may be entirely gratuitous.

Motion denied.

It is so ordered.
An official website of the United States governmentHere’s how you knowHere’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
				**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A **lock**(Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.Federal Maritime Commission



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        SearchFederal Maritime Commission



Menu
				Close
							AboutComplaints and AssistanceLicensing and CertificationProceedingsDatabases and PublicationsNews and Advisories



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        Search Home > News Articles > Industry Advisory – Names of Non-Compliant NVOCCs Posted to FMC Website

Industry Advisory – Names of Non-Compliant NVOCCs Posted to FMC Website


Posted on:


August 31, 2023 Posted August 31, 2023 The Federal Maritime Commission will begin posting the names of Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carriers (NVOCCs) that do not publish a tariff, contrary to Commission regulations (46 C.F.R. §520.3(a)). The public is advised that the NVOCCs listed are at risk of the Commission taking steps to revoke the license or terminate the registration of these NVOCCs. The list will be updated weekly.
 Industry Advisory  News Articles
 Return to top
    
    
    
    **FMC Information**
    
    
    
    About the FMC
    
    
    
    Employment Opportunities
    
    
    
    Site Policies
    
    
    
    FOIA
    
    
    
    **Government Information**
    
    
    
    Inspector General
    
    
    
    U.S. Office of Special Counsel
    
    
    
    Open Government at the FMC
    
    
    
    USA.gov
    
    
    
    Federal Maritime Commission
    
    
    Our mission is to **ensure a competitive and reliable** **international ocean transportation supply system** that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices.
    
    
    
    X
    
    YouTube
    
    LinkedIn800 North Capitol Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20573inquiries@fmc.gov
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 2512-075; Project No. 14439-001]

      ( print page 49799)    
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the applications for new licenses for the Hawks Nest Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2512-075) and the Glen Ferris Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 14439-001) located in Fayette County, West Virginia, and has prepared a final Environmental Assessment (final EA) for the projects.

In the final EA, Commission staff analyzes the potential environmental effects of the projects, and concludes that relicensing the projects, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

                    A copy of the final EA is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. The final EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*                     using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field, to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY).                

                    You may also register online at                     *http://www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​esubscription.asp*                     to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.                

For further information, contact Monir Chowdhury at (202) 502-6736.

Dated: October 20, 2017.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-23412 Filed 10-26-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
EXHIBIT
      10.24

    


    EMPLOYMENT
      AGREEMENT EXTENSION AMENDMENT

    


    THIS
      AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION (the “Agreement”) is made and
      entered into effective as of April 13, 2007 between FindEx.com, Inc., a Nevada
      corporation (the “Corporation”), and Steven Malone (“Officer”) as an amendment
      to the term extension to the previous Employment Agreement originally entered
      into on July 25, 2003.

    


    R E C I T A L S

    


    THE
      PARTIES AGREE to modify Section 3.2 of the Employment Agreement as follows:
      

    


    The
      term
“Corporation’s Net Income” shall be replaced with “Income (Loss) from Operations
      adjusted for Other Income and Interest Expense, as determined by the
      Corporation’s annual audit”.

    


    WITNESS
      WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the day and
      year first above written.

    


    


    OFFICER:

    


     

    /s/
      Steven Malone

    Steven
      Malone

    


    


    COMPANY:

    


    


    /s/
      Kirk R. Rowland

    Kirk
      R.
      Rowland

    FindEx.com,
      Inc.
OrgNo Organization Name Reason for Action Termination Date

029073 2398589 ONTARIO INC Voluntary surrender 12/15/2021

019313 COMBIMAR & AGEMAR S.P.A. Failure to maintain a bond 12/5/2021

026708 MAGELLAN LOGISTICS PTY. LTD. Failure to maintain a bond 12/1/2021

024290 ORIENT SHIPPING CO., LTD. Failure to maintain a bond 12/3/2021

026019 SEASKY PRIVATE LIMITED Failure to maintain a bond 12/2/2021

027023 SHANGHAI T&G INTERNATIONAL FORWARDING CO., LTD. Voluntary surrender 12/30/2021

026691 SHANGHAI YZ FREIGHT AGENCY CO., LTD. Voluntary surrender 12/25/2021

028690 SUZHOU SINODAK SUPPLY CHAIN CO., LTD Failure to maintain a bond 12/8/2021

024895 TMCL CONTAINER LINE GMBH Voluntary surrender 12/28/2021

024122 UNITED CARGO LOGISTICS SRL Failure to maintain a bond 12/5/2021

030299 UN‐SCM CO., LIMITED Voluntary surrender 12/21/2021

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Foreign Registered NVOCC Terminations & Surrenders

December 1, 2021  to December 31, 2021
Exhibit 32









CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Luna Medical Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Cameron King, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









/s/ Cameron King



Cameron King

Chief Executive Officer

September 29, 2003



























In connection with the Quarterly Report of Luna Medical Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Grod McDougall, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









/s/ Gord McDougall



Gord McDougall

Acting Chief Financial Officer

September 29, 2003
**EXHIBIT 31.1 — RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER     I, Cristina M. Lambert, certify that: 1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Telecomunicaciones de PuertoRico, Inc. (the “registrant”); 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report; 4) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.   Date: May 15, 2006     /s / Cristina M. Lambert   Name:   Cristina M. Lambert