alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 50735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23719]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Office of the General Counsel; Appointment of Members of the 
Legal Division to the Performance Review Board, Internal Revenue 
Service

    Under the authority granted to me as Acting Chief Counsel of the 
Internal Revenue Service by the General Counsel of the Department of 
the Treasury by General Counsel Directive 15, pursuant to the Civil 
Service Reform Act, I have appointed the following persons to the Legal 
Division Performance Review Board, Internal Revenue Service Panel:

1. Brian Callanan, Deputy General Counsel
2. Mary Beth Murphy, Commissioner (Small Business/Self Employed), IRS
3. Donna C. Hansberry, Chief (Appeals), IRS

    Alternate--Doug W. O'Donnell, Commissioner (Large Business & 
International), IRS

    This publication is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).

    Dated: October 20, 2017.
William M. Paul,
Acting Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-23719 Filed 10-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         November 16, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 9, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 374 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-23, CP2018-45.                

Elizabeth A. Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2017-24764 Filed 11-15-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM Q3 2000 10Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<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>                                         150,157
<SECURITIES>                                    79,460
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,146
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,975
<INVENTORY>                                     35,256
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               354,817
<PP&E>                                           5,754
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,514
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 358,057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           79,336
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                     278,709
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   358,057
<SALES>                                        272,045
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               272,045
<CGS>                                           94,853
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   94,853
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                75,995
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (8,023)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                109,220
<INCOME-TAX>                                    41,454
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             67,766
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    67,766
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.53


</TABLE>
Exhibit 14




Consent of Neil N. Gow





I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of reference to my name in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “Technical Report on the El Morro Project, Region III, Chile,” dated March 23, 2012, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2012, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.








Dated this 27th day of March, 2013








“Neil Gow”Name:
Neil GowTitle:
P.Geo. and Associate Consulting Geologistfor Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.





RPA Inc.55 University Ave. Suite 501 | Toronto, ON, Canada M5J 2H7 | T+1 (416) 947 0907 www.rpacan.com
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Alvin Curry","title":"How to File Service Contracts - Federal Maritime Commission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"1wnF8Si8HF\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/complaints-and-assistance\/how-to-file-service-contracts\/\">How to File Service Contracts<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/complaints-and-assistance\/how-to-file-service-contracts\/embed\/#?secret=1wnF8Si8HF\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“How to File Service Contracts” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"1wnF8Si8HF\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Regulations Governing Service Contracts Confidential service contracts are filed through SERVCON, the Commission\u2019s automated service contract filing system.  What is a Service Contract? Service contracts are between a shipper and an ocean common carrier or an ocean common carrier agreement in which the shipper commits to provide a certain minimum quantity of cargo over a [...]","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/seal_final_sm.jpg","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":293}
EXHIBIT 23.1

THE WARNACO GROUP, INC.CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-108744, 333-121771 and 333-125159 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 7, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statement and financial statement schedule of The Warnaco Group, Inc. and subsidiaries (the ‘‘Company’’) and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, (which report on the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to 1) the consolidated financial statements include limited partnership investments that do not have readily ascertainable market values 2) a change in method of accounting for stock based compensation and 3) a change in method of accounting for its defined benefit pension and other post retirement plans) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December  30, 2006.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

New York, New York March 7, 2007

----
#### James Jeganga GUGUNI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-71738.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 24, 2011.

James Jeganga Guguni, Fairfax, CA, pro se.

David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, OIL, Terri Leon-Benner, Esquire, Jennifer Parker Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

James Jeganga Guguni, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dis*741missing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Rivera v. Mulcasey,*508 F.3d 1271, 1274 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding because the inconsistencies regarding the circumstances of the December 1993 arrest and the length of Guguni’s detention following that arrest go to the heart of his claim. *See Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 962-64 (9th Cir.2004) (as long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claim, we are bound to accept the agency’s adverse credibility finding). The agency properly considered and rejected Guguni’s explanations for those inconsistencies. *See id.*at 963.

In the absence of credible testimony, Guguni’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Guguni’s CAT claim is based on testimony the agency found not credible, and he points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured if he is returned to Kenya, his CAT claim fails. *See id.*at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### NATIONAL LEAD COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent. The SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent. The EAGLE-PICHER COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent. ANACONDA COPPER MINING COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent.

Nos. 10839-10842.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

April 30, 1957.

Eugene Z. Du Bose, New York City, Nathan S. Blumberg, Chicago, 111., Thomas J. McDowell, Cleveland, Ohio, Horace G. Hitchcock, New York City, Miles G. Seeley, Harlan L. Hackbert, Chicago, 111., Edmund P. Wood, Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioners.

Robert B. Dawkins, Assistant General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before LINDLEY, SWAIM and SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The Supreme Court, in Federal Trade Commission v. National Lead Company, 352 U.S. 419, 77 S.Ct. 502, 1 L.Ed.2d 438, has held that the paragraph quoted from the Commission’s order on page 21 of our original opinion and on page 840 of the reported opinion (227 F.2d 825), *313represented proper exercise of its functions by the Commission in determining the remedy to be employed in enforcing its order. Consequently, what we have said in our original opinion to the contrary in that respect, including all that part beginning with and following the last paragraph on page 24 of the printed opinion, and with the last paragraph on page 841 of the reported opinion, is stricken. The said quoted paragraph of the Commission’s order is now approved. Accordingly, the order, as modified by our original opinion and as now modified, is affirmed. The Commission shall, within 20 days, submit a proposed decree modifying its order in accord with the views expressed in our original opinion as modified hereby and in that of the Supreme Court on review, and submit the same to petitioners, and this court. Within 10 days thereafter petitioners shall consent or file objection thereto. The final decree will then be entered.
#### Rita Suei-Te CHIANG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; United States Department of Justice; Peter D. Keisler,* Acting Attorney General; Robert S. Mueller, Director Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-55958.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 8, 2008.

Filed May 13, 2008.

Marvin L. Rudnick, Esq., Rudnick & Kadish, Pasadena, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Kimberly Anne Gaab, Esq., USF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: HALL, T.G. NELSON, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

*729MEMORANDUM **

Rita Suei-Te Chiang appeals the district court’s dismissal of her Title VII claims. The district court dismissed the claims because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s decision to revoke Chiang’s security clearance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

We review the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. *Dorfmont v. Brown,*913 F.2d 1399, 1400-01 (9th Cir.1990). Federal courts do not have the power to review an agency’s decision to grant or revoke a security clearance. *See id.*at 1401. This lack of jurisdiction extends to Title VII claims involving security clearance determinations. *Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy,*66 F.3d 193, 196 (9th Cir.1995). This lack of jurisdiction arises because when evaluating a Title VII claim the court must determine whether the defendant’s proffered reasons for its actions were a pretext to mask discrimination; and, in order to make that determination, the federal courts would be required to review the merits of the security clearance decision. *Id.*at 196-97.

Because Chiang’s Title VII claims would require the district court to review the merits of the FBI’s decision to temporarily revoke her security clearance, the district court did not err when it denied her request for an evidentiary hearing and dismissed the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We  hereby  consent  to  the   incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration  Statements on Form S-3 (Numbers 33-68510,
33-67618,  33-57246,  33-52920,  33-42841,  33-39166,  and  33-32673),  Form S-8
(Numbers 33-63220,  33-63218,  33-41712, 33-13416, 33-21545, 33-82788, 33-63106,
and 33-60789),  and Form S-4 (Number  333-15705) of Epitope,  Inc. of our report
dated October 28, 1996,  except for Note 13 as to which the date is November 14,
1996,  November 25, 1996,  December 12, 1996, and December 26, 1996, relating to
the financial statements of Epitope Medical Products group,  Agritope group, and
Epitope, Inc., which appears under Item 14 of this Form 10-K/A.




Price Waterhouse LLP

Portland, Oregon
March 12, 1997
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65221-65222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31149]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,693 AND NAFTA-04514]


Summit Timber Co., Darrington, WA; Notice of Negative 
Determination on Reconsideration

    On September 24, 2001, the Department issued an Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers 
and former workers of the subject firm. The notice as published in the 
Federal Register on October 19, 2001 (66 FR 53253).
    The Department initially denied TAA to workers of Summit Timber 
Company because the ``contributed importantly'' group eligibility 
requirement of section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was 
not met. None of the customers increased their import purchases of 
softwood dismenional lumber, while reducing their purchases from the 
subject firm.
    The Department denied NAFTA-TAA because the ``contributed 
importantly'' group eligibility requirement of Section 250 was not met 
and because there was no shift in production to either Mexico or 
Canada. None of the customers increased their import purchases of 
softwood dimensional lumber from Canada or Mexico, while reducing their 
purchases from the subject firm.
    The workers at the subject firm were engaged in employment related 
to the production of softwood dimensional lumber.
    The company supplied an additional list of customers that they 
believed were importing softwood dimensional lumber.
    On reconsideration, the Department conducted a survey of Summit 
Timber Company's additional customer list regarding their purchases of 
softwood dimensional lumber during 1999, 2000 and January through 
September 2001. The survey revealed that there were no meaningful 
increased customer purchases of imported (including from Canada or 
Mexico) softwood dimensional lumber, while customers decreased their 
purchases from the subject plant during the relevant period. Any 
customer import purchases of softwood lumber were relatively small

[[Page 65222]]

in relation to the declines in sales at the subject firm.

Conclusion

    After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative 
determinations regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment 
assistance and NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment Assistance for workers and 
former workers of Summit Timber Company, Darrington, Washington.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of November 2001.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-31149 Filed 12-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>





<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY>                      $US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1
<CASH>                                           7,411
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      297
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         43
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,180
<PP&E>                                          11,873
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,844)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,374
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           204
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,631
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,209
<SALES>                                          6,640
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,640
<CGS>                                            3,732
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,078
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,549
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (6,719)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (219)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,500)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        33
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,533)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,533)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.32)



</TABLE>