alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48843-48844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22741]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4340-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]


Virgin Islands; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands (FEMA-4340-DR), dated September 
20, 2017, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 3, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

[[Page 48844]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter 
dated October 3, 2017, the President amended the cost-sharing 
arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of 
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to Brock Long, 
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of 
Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the 
territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands resulting from Hurricane Maria 
beginning on September 16, 2017, and continuing, is of sufficient 
severity and magnitude that special cost sharing arrangements are 
warranted regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. 
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act'').
    Therefore, I amend my declaration of September 20, 2017, to 
authorize a 100 percent Federal cost share for debris removal and 
emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, 
for 180 days from the start of the incident period, and a 90 percent 
Federal cost share thereafter.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-22741 Filed 10-19-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.B


                            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 on Form 10-Q for the period
ending March 30, 2002, of East Coast Power, L.L.C. (the "Company") as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John L. Harrison, Chief Financial Officer, certify (i) that the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.


                                             /s/ John L. Harrison
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             John L. Harrison
                                             Senior Vice President,
                                             Chief Financial Officer,
                                             Treasurer and Class A Manager
                                             (Principal Financial Officer)

                                             November 14, 2002
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando LOPEZ-CUEVAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-10746.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2008.*

Filed May 15, 2008.

Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Krista Joy Hart, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

*759Before: 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 **

This is an appeal of the district court’s order issued on November 21, 2006, reaffirming the sentence, following affirmation in appeal No. 04-10285 of appellant’s conviction, but remand of the matter by this court for further proceedings in light of *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005). On remand, the district court reaffirmed the sentence previously imposed, finding that the sentence imposed was not materially different from the sentence that would have been given had the Court known that the guidelines were advisory.

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 district court carefully considered the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Further “reasonableness” review by this court is not warranted. *See United States v. Combs,*470 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir.2006).

To the extent that appellant argues that he should have been allowed to allocute when the case was remanded for an *Ameline*inquiry, that argument is foreclosed by this court’s opinion in *United States v. Silva,*472 F.3d 683 (9th Cir.2007). To the extent that appellant argues the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing on remand we note that the district court followed the procedure suggested by *Ameline. See United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d at 1085. Both parties submitted written materials to the district court prior to the district court issuing its written order reaffirming the sentence previously imposed. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant an evidentiary hearing. See *United States v. Chacon-Palomares,*208 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.2000).

Appellee’s renewed motion for summary affirmance is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1

 Ja-Ja Atu-Mani, a/k/a Curtis Gouldin, was also a plaintiff in the complaint. Howe ver, his case was

dismissed on motion of the Defendants prior to resolution of Mr. Farnsworth’s case and the decision was not appealed.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Submitted on Briefs September 28, 2000

PAUL FARNSWORTH, a/k/a RONNIE BRADFIELD v. DONITA MOORE,

ET AL.

Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bledsoe County

No. 2056 Thomas W. Graham, Judge

_______FILED DECEMBER 27, 2000_____________

No. E2000–01623-COA-R3-CV

______________________________

The Plaintiff, an inmate of the penal system of this State, sues the Warden of the Southeastern

Tennessee State Regional Correctional Facility and certain other officials of the facility seeking

monetary damages and an injunction based on five separate causes of action. The Trial Court

dismissed his complaint, finding that because he refused to submit to a medical evaluation provided

by the Defendant pursuant to the orders of the Court, the Court was unable to make an evaluation

and as a result of his violation of Tenn.R.Civ.P. 41.02, dismissed his suit. We affirm.

Tenn.R.App.P.3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed;

Cause Remanded

HOUSTON M. GODDARD, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HERSCHEL P. FRANKS

and CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JJ., joined.

Paul Farnsworth, a/k/a Ronnie Bradfield, Henning, Tennessee, Appellant, Pro Se

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, Michael Moore, Solicitor General, and

Pamela S. Lorch, Assistant Attorney General, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellees Donita

Moore, et al.

OPINION

Paul Farnsworth, a/k/a Ronnie Bradfield,1

 seeks damages from James Bowlen, Warden of

the Southeastern Tennessee State Regional Correctional Facility, and certain other officials of the

Correctional Facility. He seeks damages alleging five separate causes of action which are set out in

the Appendix to this opinion.
2

 41.02. In volunta ry Dismiss al – Effect Thereof. (1) For failure of the plaintiff to pro secute or to c omply

with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against the

defendan t.

-2-

The Trial Court ultimately found that Mr. Farnsworth had “refused to submit to a medical

evaluation provided by the Defendant pursuant to the orders of this Court.” The Court then found

that it was impossible for it to make an evaluation and, because Mr. Farnsworth was in direct

violation of Tenn.R.Civ.P. 41.02,2

 dismissed his suit.

Our review of the record persuades us that the Trial Court did not abuse his discretion in

dismissing the case and his action was appropriate under the circumstances. 

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed and the cause remanded

for collection of costs below. Costs of appeal are adjudged against Mr. Farnsworth.

_________________________________________

HOUSTON M. GODDARD, PRESIDING JUDGE
EXHIBIT 10.11

[GRAPHIC OMITTED]
 BRIGHTEC
    ooo Be Brilliant.
                                     ADVANCED LUMITECH INC. d/b/a BRIGHTEC
                                     8c Pleasant Street, First Floor
                                     South Natick, MA 01760

                                     508/647-9710 T
                                     508/647-9711 F

                                     pplanche@brightec.com
                                     www.brightec.com

December 21, 2005

David Geffen
375 Lee Street
Brookline, Massachusetts 02445


Dear David:

         This will confirm the agreement between Advanced Lumitech, Inc. d/b/a
Brightec (the "Company") and you concerning your agreement to allow the Company
to redeem, effective as of the date hereof, 500,000 shares (the "Shares") of the
Company's common stock, $.001 par value (the "Common Stock"), owned by you in
order to allow the Company to fulfill its commitments to issue shares of its
Common Stock to certain consultants and investors in the Company. In connection
with the Company's redemption of the Shares, the Company and you agree that the
Company shall not pay you any consideration in connection with the redemption,
provided, however, that the Company will use its best efforts to increase the
number of authorized shares of its Common Stock as soon as reasonably
practicable after the date hereof and that, upon such event, it will issue
500,000 replacement shares (the "Replacement Shares") to you (adjusted for any
stock split, stock dividend or similar recapitalization occurring after the date
hereof and prior to such issuance) for no additional consideration. The Company
further agrees that if the Company is sold prior to the issuance of the
Replacement Shares, whether pursuant to a merger, sale of all or substantially
all of the Company's assets or otherwise, you shall be treated as the owner of
such Replacement Shares for purposes of determining any proceeds of such
transaction distributable to you.

         Please execute the counterpart copy of this letter in the space
provided to indicate your agreement to the foregoing upon which this letter
shall become a binding agreement between the Company and you.

                                       Very truly yours,

                                       Advanced Lumitech, Inc.
                                       d/b/a Brightec


                                       By: /s/ PATRICK PLANCHE
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Patrick Planche

Agreed and acceptable
this 21st day of December, 2005

/s/ DAVID GEFFEN
-----------------------------
David Geffen
Table of Contents

Exhibit 15.2 

**Consent of Independent Accounting Firm**

            We hereby consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form****F-3 of TAM S.A. (File No. 333-147020), TAM Linhas  Aéreas S.A. (File No. 333-147020-01) and TAM Capital Inc. (File No.  333-147020-02), of our report dated  June XX, 2009 relating to the  financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial  reporting, which is incorporated in the Form 20-F of TAM S.A., TAM Linhas Aéreas S.A. and TAM Capital  Inc. (together, “**TAM**”) for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “**2008****20-F**”). 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Edison Schools Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2001 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Christopher J. Scarlata, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 issuer.

November 14, 2002                           /s/ Christopher J. Scarlata
                                            ---------------------------
                                            Christopher J. Scarlata
                                            Executive Vice President and
                                            Chief Financial Officer
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.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for 10335, The First State Bank, Camargo, Oklahoma, has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of The First State Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law. The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds. Effective November 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

Dated: November 3, 2017.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman, 

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-24283 Filed 11-7-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
{"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":"Commissioner Doyle announces KPMG TaxWatch Webcast on China VAT Issue; New explanation issued from China on definition of \u201cagents\u201d in Circular 106","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5mrZMPj71G\"><a href=\"\/commissioner-doyle-announces-kpmg-taxwatch-webcast-on-china-vat-issue-new-explanation-issued-from-china-on-definition-of-agents-in-circular-106\/\">Commissioner Doyle announces KPMG TaxWatch Webcast on China VAT Issue; New explanation issued from China on definition of \u201cagents\u201d in Circular 106<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commissioner-doyle-announces-kpmg-taxwatch-webcast-on-china-vat-issue-new-explanation-issued-from-china-on-definition-of-agents-in-circular-106\/embed\/#?secret=5mrZMPj71G\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioner Doyle announces KPMG TaxWatch Webcast on China VAT Issue; New explanation issued from China on definition of \u201cagents\u201d in Circular 106” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"5mrZMPj71G\" 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"}
#### J. LLOYD INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The TESTOR CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-1561.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 3, 2010.

Filed: Nov. 30, 2010.

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

J. Lloyd International, Inc. (JLI), filed a complaint against the Testor Corporation (Testor) alleging breach of warranty and three breaches of their manufacturing agreement. After discovery — which JLI frustrated with often-vague responses, even after (occasional) compulsion — Testor moved for summary judgment. The district court1 granted Tester’s motion. JLI appeals.

The district court issued a comprehensive order addressing JLI’s four claims. *See J. Lloyd Int’l, Inc. v. Testor Corp.,*No. 08-CV-134-LRR, 2010 WL 605657 (N.D.Iowa Feb. 17, 2010). As no error of law appears in the order, this court affirms. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
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 Annual Report of China XD Plastics Company Limited (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Taylor Zhang, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to 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.





Date:
April 14, 2010





/s/
      Taylor ZhangTaylor
      Zhang
      Principal Financial and Accounting Officer