alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 246 (Friday, December 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 65987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31405]



[[Page 65987]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NV-930-1430-00; NVN-74668]


Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Opportunity for Public Meeting; 
Nevada

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, has filed an 
application to withdraw 40 acres of public land for the United States 
Air Force to use as a safe zone for departing and arriving aircraft at 
the Nellis Air Force Base. The land was previously withdrawn by Public 
Land Order No. 5832, which has expired. The land is still needed as a 
safe zone.

DATE: Comments and requests for meeting should be received on or before 
March 21, 2002.

ADDRESS: Comments and meeting requests should be sent to the Nevada 
State Director, BLM, P.O. Box 12000, Reno, Nevada 89520.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis J. Samuelson, BLM Nevada State 
Office, 775-861-6532.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Army, Los Angeles 
District, Corps Engineers, on behalf of the United States Air Force, 
has filed an application to withdraw the following described public 
land from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the general land 
laws, including the mining laws, subject to valid existing rights:

Mount Diablo Meridian

T. 19 S., R. 62 E.,
    sec. 35, SE\1/4\SW\1/4\.

    The area described contains 40 acres in Clark County.
    The purpose of the proposed withdrawal is for a clear zone near the 
end of the runway at the Nellis Air Force Base. The land was previously 
withdrawn as a clear zone by Public Land Order No. 5832, which expired 
in January 2001. The clear zone is critical to support the mission of 
the Nellis Air Force Base.
    For a period of 90 days from the date of publication of this 
notice, all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or 
objections in connection with the proposed withdrawal may present their 
views in writing to the Nevada State Director of the Bureau of Land 
Management.
    Notice is hereby given that an opportunity for a public meeting is 
afforded in connection with the proposed withdrawal. All interested 
persons who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on 
the proposed withdrawal must submit a written request to the Nevada 
State Director within 90 days from the date of publication of this 
notice. Upon determination by the authorized officer that a public 
meeting will be held, a notice of the time and place will be published 
in the Federal Register at least 30 days before the scheduled date of 
the meeting.
    The application will be processed in accordance with the 
regulations set forth in 43 CFR Part 2300.

    Dated: November 26, 2001.
Jim Stobaugh,
Lands Team Lead.
[FR Doc. 01-31405 Filed 12-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-HC-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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

      ( print page 53527)    
                    Notice is hereby given that, on October 25, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Integrated Photonics Institute for Manufacturing Innovation operating under the name of the American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics (“AIM Photonics”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Corning Research & Development Corporation, Corning, NY; Regents of the University of Idaho, Moscow, ID; The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX; Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA; and REDCOM Laboratories, Inc., Victor, NY, have been added as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and AIM Photonics intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On June 16, 2016, AIM Photonics filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 25, 2016 (81 FR 48450).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 19, 2017. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on August 1, 2017 (82 FR 35824).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2017-24766 Filed 11-15-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Air Brook Airport Express, Inc. (the
"Company") on form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this Certification (the
"Report"), I, Donald M. Petroski, the Chief Executive 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:

         (1)      The Report complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of the Securities and 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.


January 21, 2005        /s/Donald M. Petroski
                        -----------------------------------------------------
                        DONALD M. PETROSKI, Chief Executive Officer, President,
                        Chief Financial Officer and Director
{"id":47,"count":16,"description":"","link":"\/tag\/osra\/","name":"OSRA","slug":"osra","taxonomy":"post_tag","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags\/47"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/taxonomies\/post_tag"}],"wp:post_type":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts?tags=47"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002 I, Fernando L. Fernandez, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    The accompanying annual report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2)
    The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of Continucare Corporation. Date:
May 23, 2005
    
    By: /s/ Fernando L. FernandezFERNANDO L. FERNANDEZ
Senior Vice President  Finance, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer
 1
73 A.3d 576

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Jennifer Ann KERSTETTER, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 22, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 22nd day of August 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

> Did the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania err when it held that a kindergarten student under the age of eight years is of compulsory school age pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Compulsory School Attendance laws codified at 24 Pa.C.S. § 13-1327?
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"FMCS Collaboration with Universities - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"cSLWyySA6J\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/education-and-outreach\/fmcs-collaboration-with-universities\/\">FMCS Collaboration with Universities<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/education-and-outreach\/fmcs-collaboration-with-universities\/embed\/#?secret=cSLWyySA6J\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMCS Collaboration with Universities” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"cSLWyySA6J\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\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\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"FMCS mediators, with their wealth of practical experience in all facets of conflict management and resolution, have much to contribute to the learning and research in the field of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). With a dedication to continuous improvement as conflict management professionals, FMCS mediators are always curious to learn from the cutting-edge research in […]"}
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2724

___________

Xiong Huang, * 

* 

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of a Final

v. * Decision of the Board of 

* Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General * 

of the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: February 16, 2007

Filed: April 4, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Xiong Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitioned for asylum. The

Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his asylum petition. The Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA) affirmed. Huang now seeks review. We deny the petition for review.

Huang entered the United States illegally. He originally petitioned for asylum

in 1994. After obtaining new counsel, he filed a second petition in 1998, requesting

an adjustment of status based upon his recent marriage to a naturalized American

citizen. The second asylum petition also claimed that Huang would be persecuted if

returned to China because he opposed the nation's one-child policy. The IJ found that
-2-

Huang's persecution claim lacked credibility. The IJ also refused to grant Huang the

adjustment of status and denied his petition for asylum.

Huang appeals, challenging only the IJ's refusal to grant him an adjustment of

status. Adjustment of status is entirely within the discretion of the Attorney General.

Alvarez-Portillo v. Ashcroft, 280 F.3d 858, 862 (8th Cir. 2002); 8 U.S.C. § 1255.

Congress has stripped the courts of jurisdiction to review decisions executed pursuant

to that discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) ("[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to

review . . . any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1255 of this

title . . . "); Grass v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir. 2005). Because we lack

jurisdiction to review the Attorney General's discretionary decision to deny an

adjustment of status, Huang's petition is dismissed. 

______________________________
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ADAM NORCROSS,

 Defendant Below, 

 Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

 Plaintiff Below, 

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 122, 2017

Court Below: Superior Court

of the State of Delaware

ID. No. 0002006278A (K) 

Submitted: December 13, 2017

 Decided: January 2, 2018

 Corrected: January 11, 2018

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices. 

O R D E R

This 11th day of January 2018, it appears to the Court that:

The appellant, Adam Norcross, was convicted of murder in the first degree 

in 2001 and sentenced to death. After this Court’s decisions in Rauf v. State1 and 

Powell v. State2the appellant appeared in the Superior Court for resentencing. He 

contended that he should not be sentenced to life imprisonment without benefit of 

probation or parole or any other reduction under 11 Del. C. §4209(d)(2). Instead, 

he contended, he should be resentenced under 11 Del. C. § 4205(b)(1), which is the 

 

1

145 A.3d 430 (Del. 2016).

2

153 A.3d 69 (Del. 2016).
2

sentencing statute for Class A felonies. The Superior Court rejected the appellant’s 

contentions and sentenced him to life imprisonment without benefit of probation or 

parole or any other reduction. The appellant’s contentions have no merit. The 

judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the 

reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its Memorandum Opinion dated 

February 10, 2017 rejecting the same contentions made by the appellant’s codefendant, Ralph Swan.3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the 

Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

Justice

 

3 The answer to Question Five in the per curiam opinion in Rauf applied to severability of the 

procedures leading to the death penalty. It had no effect upon 11 Del. C. § 4209(d)(2). Powell v. 

State, 153 A.3d 69 (Del. 2016); Phillips v. State, 154 A.3d 1130 (Del. 2917); State v. Reyes, 155 

A.3d 331 (Del. 2017).
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 65475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31229]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP02-36-000]


Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of 
Application

December 13, 2001.
    Take notice that on November 30, 2001, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), P.O. Box 5601, Bismarck, North 
Dakota 58506-5601, filed in Docket No. CP02-36-000 an Abbreviated 
Application pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and 
Sections 157.7 and 157.18 of the Commission's Regulations for an order 
authorizing Williston Basin to abandon the transportation of natural 
gas volumes for Shell Western E&P, Inc. (Shell) pursuant to Rate 
Schedule T-5 and authorizing Williston Basin to abandon Rate Schedule 
T-5 of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1 (Tariff), in 
its entirety, all as more fully set forth in the application which is 
on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The 
application may be viewed on the web at www.ferc.fed.us/online/
rims.htm. Call (202) 208-2222 for assistance.
    Williston Basin states that the Rate Schedule T-5 Service Agreement 
with Shell expires by the terms of the agreement on December 1, 2001 
and no service has been provided to Shell pursuant to this Service 
Agreement since March 1998. Williston Basin also states that pursuant 
to Docket No. CP85-534-000, Rate Schedule T-5 was available only to six 
specific producers. Williston Basin has previously filed for and 
received authorization, pursuant to Section 7(b) of the NGA, to abandon 
service to the other five specific producers. With the termination of 
the Service Agreement with Shell on December 1, 2001, service under 
Rate Schedule T-5 will no longer be available to any party and 
Williston Basin has no further need for Rate Schedule T-5.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said application should file with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene or a 
protest in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All such motions 
to intervene or protests should be filed on or before January 3, 2002. 
All protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to 
make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a party in any 
hearing therein must file a motion to intervene in accordance with the 
Commission's Rules.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-31229 Filed 12-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66402-66403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31642]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-580-825]

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of 
Administrative Antidumping Review: Oil Country Tubular Goods, Other 
Than Drill Pipe, From Korea

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 26, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Lindsay or Thomas Gilgunn, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0780 and (202) 482-4236, 
respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 66403]]

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act) are to the provisions effective January 1, 
1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, 
all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 
(2000).

Background

    On August 11, 1995, the Department published in the Federal 
Register an antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods, other 
than drill pipe, (OCTG) from Korea (60 FR 41057). On August 31, 2000, 
the Department received a timely request from SeAH to conduct an 
administrative review pursuant to section 351.213(b)(2) of the 
Department's regulations. We published a notice of initiation of this 
antidumping duty administrative review on OCTG on October 2, 2000 (65 
FR 58733).
    The Department subsequently determined it was not practicable to 
complete the review within the standard time frame, and extended the 
deadline for completion of the preliminary results for this antidumping 
duty administrative review. See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea: 
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Administrative Review, 66 FR 23232 (May 8, 2001). On September 10, 
2001, the Department published the preliminary results of this 
administrative review. See Oil Country Tubular Goods From Korea: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 
46999 (September 10, 2001).

Extension of Time Limits for Final Results

    Due to the need to analyze comments on inland freight expenses and 
indirect selling expenses, it is not practicable to complete the review 
within the initial time limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act. Therefore, we are extending the due date for the final results of 
this review until March 9, 2002.

    Dated: December 13, 2001.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Group III.
[FR Doc. 01-31642 Filed 12-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```