alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 217 (Monday, November 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 52353]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24513]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Bureau of the Fiscal Service; Senior Executive Service; Fiscal 
Service Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of Appointments to the Fiscal Service Performance Review 
Board.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the appointment of the members of the 
Fiscal Service Performance Review Board (PRB) for the Bureau of the 
Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service). The PRB reviews the performance 
appraisals of career senior executives who are below the level of 
Assistant Commissioner/Executive Director and who are not assigned to 
the Office of the Commissioner in the Fiscal Service. The PRB makes 
recommendations regarding proposed performance appraisals, ratings, 
bonuses, pay adjustments, and other appropriate personnel actions.

DATES: Applicable on November 13, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy L. Thornton, Chief Human Capital 
Officer, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, (202) 874-5147.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Notice announces the appointment of the 
following primary and alternate members to the Fiscal Service PRB:
Primary Members:
    Stephen L. Manning, Deputy Commissioner, Finance & Administration, 
Fiscal Service
    Dara N. Seaman, Assistant Commissioner, Wholesale Securities 
Services, Fiscal Service
    Douglas Anderson, Assistant Commissioner, Shared Services, Fiscal 
Service
Alternate Member:
    John B. Hill, Assistant Commissioner, Financial Innovation & 
Transformation, Fiscal Service

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. Section 4314(c)(4)

Sheryl R. Morrow,
Commissioner, Bureau of the Fiscal Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-24513 Filed 11-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4810-AS-P
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION
FURNISHED 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 Duke Mining Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K/A for the period ended November 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit (the “Report”), the
undersigned officer of the Company does hereby certify, pursuant to Rule
15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section
1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
her knowledge:
  (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 results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date:
March 5, 2010
  By:
              /s/ Richard RosenblumName:
              Richard
      RosenblumTitle:
              Chief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2912 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require certain institutions 

of higher education to provide notice of tuition levels for students. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2021 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT (for himself, Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. 

FITZPATRICK, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. VARGAS, Mr. PETERS, Mr. 

SWALWELL, Mr. CONNOLLY, and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 

certain institutions of higher education to provide notice 

of tuition levels for students. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Truth in Tuition Act 

5 of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NOTICE OF TUITION LEVELS. 

7 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 487(a) of the Higher 

8 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended 

9 by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2912 IH

1 ‘‘(30)(A) The institution will provide to each 

2 student admitted to an undergraduate or graduate 

3 program— 

4 ‘‘(i) a multi-year tuition and fee schedule; 

5 or 

6 ‘‘(ii) a single-year tuition and fee schedule, 

7 and a nonbinding, multi-year estimate of net 

8 costs after all financial aid is awarded, assum9 ing constant family and student income, assets, 

10 and relevant circumstances. 

11 ‘‘(B) Multi-year schedules and estimates re12 quired by subparagraph (A)— 

13 ‘‘(i) may include a percentage or dollar in14 crease or decrease of any size the institution de15 termines to be appropriate from one year to the 

16 next; and 

17 ‘‘(ii) shall indicate, on a year-by-year basis, 

18 costs for the normal duration of such student’s 

19 undergraduate or graduate program. 

20 ‘‘(C) Institutions that elect a single-year tuition 

21 and fee schedule under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall 

22 include with each multi-year estimate provided under 

23 such subparagraph the average deviation, in percent24 age terms, between previous year estimates and ac25 tual net costs for students at their institution. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2912 IH

1 ‘‘(D) The Secretary shall waive the require2 ments of subparagraph (A) if the institution dem3 onstrates to the Secretary that the requirements of 

4 subparagraph (A) are not practicable because of the 

5 occurrence of one or more events causing the institu6 tion severe economic distress, dramatic reduction of 

7 State or Federal aid, or any other circumstance de8 termined to be appropriate by the Secretary.’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) shall be effective on the date that is 120 

11 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Roberto Illa, Individually and as Father and Natural Guardian of Ruben Illa, an Infant, Respondent, v St. Brigid’s School, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 32]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated March 25, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The record establishes that the infant plaintiff was injured as the result of a spontaneous and unforeseeable act committed by a fellow student. The alleged inadequacy of the supervision furnished by the defendant’s employees cannot, under these and all the other circumstances presented, be considered a cause of the injuries suffered by the infant plaintiff *(see generally, Broad v Patico Corp.,*243 AD2d 434; *Danna v Sewanhaka Cent. High School Dist.,*242 AD2d 361; *Walsh v City School Dist.,*237 AD2d 811; *Moores v City of Newburgh School Dist.,*237 AD2d 265; *Ceglia v Portledge School,*187 AD2d 550; *Hauser v North Rockland Cent. School Dist. No. 1,*166 AD2d 553). The plaintiffs failed to raise any issue of fact requiring a trial after the defendant had demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The defendant’s motion should therefore be granted. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CORNELL ANTHONY COLE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 30 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of May, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
{"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":"Meeting Schedule","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"4ZDmGP1aDu\"><a href=\"\/about-the-fmc\/meeting-schedule\/\">Meeting Schedule<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/about-the-fmc\/meeting-schedule\/embed\/#?secret=4ZDmGP1aDu\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Meeting Schedule” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"4ZDmGP1aDu\" 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 34.1

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

Board of Directors and Shareholders

Commonwealth Bank of Australia

We have examined management’sassertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Commonwealth Bank of Australia (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Residential Mortgage Loans Platform (the Platform) as of and for the period from 14 March 2006 (date of issuance of the Medallion Trust Series 2006-1G) through 30 June 2006, except for criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(ii), 1122(d)(2)(iv)-(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(x)-(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiv)-(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by  the Company with respect to the Platform. Medallion Trust Series 2006-1G is the only asset-backed transactionand security defined by management as constituting the Platform.Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included selection of a sample of transactions and compliance activities related to the Platform during the examination period, and determining whether the Company processed those transactions and performed those activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.  Furthermore, our testing of the selected transactions and compliance activities was limited to calculations, reports, and activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures did not include determining whether errors may have occurred prior to our teststhat may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the period 14 March 2006 through 30 June 2006 for the Residential Mortgage Loans Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young

 

Ernst & Young

Sydney

15 September 2006
OrgNo Organization Name Reason for Action Terminated Date

027692 GEOJET LOGISTICS SERVICES, INC. Failure to maintain a bond 2/23/2022

028782 INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING AND LOGISTICS Failure to maintain a bond 2/25/2022

017137 MEGAIMPEX PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. Voluntary Surrendered 2/4/2022

020927 NASHRAH SHIPPING & LOGISTICS (PRIVATE) LIMITED Failure to maintain a bond 2/4/2022

021314 PCL CO., LTD. S.A. Failure to maintain a bond 2/26/2022

028820 SHENZHEN QIANHAI DAKUN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT CO., LTD Failure to maintain a bond 2/26/2022

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Foreign Registered NVOCC Terminations & Surrenders

February 1, 2022 to February 28, 2022
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Fontez CALHOUN, a.k.a. William Allen Anderson, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-14607

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 16, 2008.

William Scott Brower, Joyce White Vance, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintifl-Appellee.

*889Scott Brower, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BIRCH, DUBINA and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

W. Scott Brower, counsel for Carlos Fontez Calhoun, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Because our independent review of the entire record reveals no issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdrawn is GRANTED and Calhoun’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED. Appellant’s motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED as moot.
Table of Contents

**Exhibit 13.6**

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

In connection with the Amended Annual Report of TAM Capital Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Líbano Miranda Barroso, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: 

      (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

 Date: September 1, 2009 

 By: /s/ Líbano Miranda Barroso        Líbano Miranda Barroso        Chief Financial Officer
{"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":"FMC Invites Comments on Proposed Rule Addressing Cruise Line Non-Performance and Refunds","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"g3A7JApuqY\"><a href=\"\/fmc-invites-comments-on-proposed-rule-addressing-cruise-line-non-performance-and-refunds\/\">FMC Invites Comments on Proposed Rule Addressing Cruise Line Non-Performance and Refunds<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/fmc-invites-comments-on-proposed-rule-addressing-cruise-line-non-performance-and-refunds\/embed\/#?secret=g3A7JApuqY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMC Invites Comments on Proposed Rule Addressing Cruise Line Non-Performance and Refunds” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"g3A7JApuqY\" 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"}
Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)





Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Cellceutix Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The
Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2008 of the Company fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.





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





Dated:September 24, 2008









/s/
      Leo EhrlichLeo
      Ehrlich(Principal
      Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6451

LARRY L. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-99-11)

Submitted: August 26, 2005 Decided: September 15, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry L. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. McWilliams, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Larry L. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b), seeking reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion. To appeal an order denying a Rule 60(b)

motion in a habeas action, Williams must establish entitlement to

a certificate of appealability. See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d

363, 368 (4th Cir. 2004).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite

showing. Because Williams’s Rule 60(b) motion did not assert a

defect in the original collateral review process itself, but rather

reargued the merits of his § 2255 motion based on new case law,

reasonable jurists would not find debatable or wrong the district

court’s characterization of the Rule 60(b) motion as a successive

§ 2255 motion under our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340
- 3 -

F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

To the extent that Williams’s notice of appeal and

informal brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See

Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208. 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.

DISMISSED