alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 50598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23728]



[[Page 50598]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 573

[Docket No. FDA-2013-F-1539]


DSM Nutritional Products, Inc.; Withdrawal of Food Additive 
Petition (Animal Use)

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification; withdrawal of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the 
withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of a food additive 
petition (animal use) (FAP 2276) proposing that the food additive 
regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of ethoxyquin in 
vitamin D formulations, including 25-hydroxyvitamin D<INF>3</INF>, used 
in animal food.

DATES: The food additive petition was withdrawn on September 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the 
docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into 
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts; and/or go to the Dockets 
Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chelsea Trull, Center for Veterinary 
Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, 
MD 20855, 240-402-6729, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1e7d767b726d7b7f306a6c6b72725e787a7f3076766d30797168"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a1c2c9c4cdd2c4c08fd5d3d4cdcde1c7c5c08fc9c9d28fc6ced7">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal 
Register of December 23, 2013 (78 FR 77384), we announced that we had 
filed a food additive petition (FAP 2276), submitted by DSM Nutritional 
Products, 45 Waterview Blvd., Parsippany, NJ 07054. The petition 
proposed to amend the food additive regulations in 21 CFR part 573 Food 
Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals to provide 
for the safe use of ethoxyquin as a chemical preservative in vitamin D 
formulations, including 25-hydroxyvitamin D<INF>3,</INF> used in animal 
food. DSM Nutritional Products, Inc., has now withdrawn the petition 
without prejudice to a future filing (21 CFR 571.7).

    Dated: October 26, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-23728 Filed 10-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
{"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 Michael A. Khouri’s Speech for the 2020 NCBFAA Government Affairs and Annual Conference","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"9xXEMSAgvY\"><a href=\"\/khouris-2020-ncbfaa-govt-affairs-annual-conference\/\">Chairman Michael A. Khouri’s Speech for the 2020 NCBFAA Government Affairs and Annual Conference<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/khouris-2020-ncbfaa-govt-affairs-annual-conference\/embed\/#?secret=9xXEMSAgvY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Chairman Michael A. Khouri’s Speech for the 2020 NCBFAA Government Affairs and Annual Conference” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"9xXEMSAgvY\" 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"}
VOCC Audit Update

Briefing to the Commission, May 2022
Detention and Demurrage 

Update
Progress on Achieving Detention 

and Demurrage Best Practices

• Most carriers have developed internal 

documentation on processes and practices and 

have updated the audit team on a continuous 

basis; we also check in with the quarterly data 

call and regularly scheduled meetings.

• Two carriers still appear to lack internal 

documentation on processes and practices. 

We have requested a timeline for carrier 

action/improvements.
Data Overview
Data Highlights

• Calendar Year 2021

• Total D/D Billed $5.3 billion

• Total D/D Collected $4 billion

• Total D/D Waived $646.7 million
Smaller Carrier Detention and 

Demurrage Assessment Update

• VOCC Audit initially focused on website content related 

to definitions, charges, dispute policies and 

procedures

• Activities and Outcomes

• Concentrated on a subset of smaller carriers who are active in 

the transpacific and transatlantic trades.

• Discussed in meetings and sent letters to carriers. 

• Nearly all have updated their websites to achieve best 

practices.
Export Meetings Update
Export Meetings

• 11 carriers 

• FMC provided PIERS data on exports from 2019-2021 

to each carrier in advance

• By broad commodity group

• By port

• Questions for carriers

• Main factor/challenges leading to export decline (if relevant)

• Follow up specific to agricultural exports

• Does the carrier have an export strategy

• Was the shift in exports by port driven by market factors or the 

carrier's export strategy

• Challenges in containerized agricultural commodities

• Recommendations for FMC regarding exports
Export Meetings, Key Themes

• Most carriers have strategies for serving exports

• Rudimentary: use to cover cost of moving equipment back to 

origin

• Sophisticated: targeted commodities and partners with 

committed equipment repositioning and growth strategies

• Some market shocks outside of the pandemic 

impacted exports

• Export analysis is nuanced since products are 

heterogeneous, even within HS codes

• Economics of moving exports are complex
#### SE YOUNG AN; Mi Jung An, a.k.a. Mi Jung Jin; Eui Lee An; Joo Lee An, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-73538.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*241Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 1, 2010.

Se Young An, Cypress, CA, pro se.

Mi Jung An, Cypress, CA, pro se.

Eui Lee An, Cypress, CA, pro se.

Joo Lee An, Cypress, CA, pro se.

Janette L. Allen, Esquire, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Mi Jung An and family, natives and citizens of South Korea, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to continue, *Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,*526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), and review de novo questions of law, *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying petitioners’ seventh request for a continuance over a three-year period where petitioners’ eligibility for relief was speculative. *See Sandoval-Luna,*526 F.3d at 1247 (no abuse of discretion in denying a motion to continue where relief was not immediately available).

The agency properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of Mi Jung An’s Form 1-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. *See Matter of Marcal Neto,*25 I. & N. Dec. 169, 174 (BIA 2010) (the IJ and the BIA do not have jurisdiction over visa petitions); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(b), (n)(2). The agency properly concluded that petitioners were ineligible for adjustment of status. *See Shin v. Mukasey,*547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir.2008) (petitioner had not shown prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status where she failed to submit evidence of an approved 1-140).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         313,257
<SECURITIES>                                    99,872
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,693
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               441,746
<PP&E>                                          17,763
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,045
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,269,176
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,985
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,210,420
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,269,176
<SALES>                                         78,074
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                78,074
<CGS>                                           33,469
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,469
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               553,346
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (491,793)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (491,793)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (491,793)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (13.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (13.91)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                 --------------

                                 CERTIFICATIONS
                                 --------------

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:


      1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
            10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
            report on Form 10-K of CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2006-6 (the
            "Exchange Act periodic reports");

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
            whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
            information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
            covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
            reports;

      4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
            servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
            conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s) required
            in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
            disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s) have
            fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all
            material respects; and

      5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
            criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
            reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
            asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
            accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
            13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
            except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
            of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
            this report on Form 10-K.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
      information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank
      of New York, as Trustee.

Date: March 26, 2007


      /s/ Steve Bailey
      ----------------------------
      Steve Bailey
      Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration
#### Johannes Alexander KULLIT, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-70414.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed April 29, 2008.

Johannes Alexander Kullit, pro se.

Richard Zanfardino, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, for Respondent.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Johannes Alexander Kullit, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision pretermitting his asylum application and denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review fact finding for substantial evidence, *Sael v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 922, 924 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review in part and dismiss it in part.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Kullit has shown extraordinary or changed circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. *See Ramadan v. Gonzales,*479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam); 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4), (5).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Kullit has not dem*560onstrated the clear probability of future persecution required for withholding of removal. *See Hakeem v. INS,*273 F.3d 812, 816-17 (9th Cir.2001).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Kullit’s contentions regarding CAT protection, because he did not raise them before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Paul G. HOUSE, PetitionerAppellee/CrossAppellant, v. Ricky BELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Nos. 08-5107, 08-5108.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 5, 2008.

BEFORE: MERRITT, NORRIS, and SILER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Warden Ricky Bell, represented by the Attorney General of the State of Tennessee, appeals from the conditional grant of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, to petitioner Paul G. House, who has been under sentence of death since 1986. In addition to the assignments of error raised by respondent, petitioner cross-appeals the denial of habeas relief on the alleged misuse of fiber evidence by the prosecution.

As the date of conviction confirms, this case has a long procedural history, which we see no reason to recite here. Suffice it to say that this court, sitting en banc, previously upheld the denial of the writ in a closely divided decision. *House v. Bell, 386 F.3d 668*(6th Cir.2004) (en banc). The Supreme Court reversed, however. *House v. Bell,*547 U.S. 518, 126 S.Ct. 2064, 165 L.Ed.2d 1 (2006). We then remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with that opinion. *House v. Bell,*466 F.3d 549 (6th Cir.2006). The district court granted a conditional writ vacating the conviction and sentence unless the State retried petitioner within 180 days.

Having had the benefit of the guidance provided by the Supreme Court, as well as the extensive briefing and oral argument of the parties, we now affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set forth in its memorandum opinion dated December 20, 2007, 2007 WL 4568444. Given the extensive consideration that this case has received in the course of its twenty-year history, a detailed opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose and *438would only further delay resolution of this matter.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 206 (Thursday, October 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49605-49606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23293]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-14-000]


Midwest Power Transmission Arkansas, LLC; Notice of Institution 
of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On October 19, 2017, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. 
EL18-14-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 
U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether the 
formula rate protocols of Midwest Power Transmission Arkansas, LLC may 
be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential. Midwest 
Power

[[Page 49606]]

Transmission Arkansas, LLC, 161 FERC 61,051 (201X).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL18-14-000, established 
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL18-14-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as 
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21 
days of the date of issuance of the order.

    Dated: October 19, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-23293 Filed 10-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kim A. PRATER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7029.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 1, 2010.

Kim A. Prater, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kim A. Prater appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Prater,*Nos. *7891:03-cr-00075-jpj-mfu-1; 1:01-cr-00018-jpj-1 (W.D.Va. June 18, 2010).

Prater also appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Prater has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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 decisional process.

*AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.*