alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 2, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 59]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-32248]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-806]


Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping New Shipper Review: Silicon Metal From the People's 
Republic of China

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 2, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Maureen 
Flannery, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-5255 or (202) 482-3020, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

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

Background

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on June 29, 2001, the 
Department received the timely and properly filed June 28, 2001 request 
from Groupstars Chemical Company, Ltd., that we conduct a new shipper 
review of its sales of silicon metal. On July 31, 2001, the Department 
initiated a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on silicon 
metal for the period of review (POR) of June 1, 2000 through May 31, 
2001 (66 FR 41508).

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results

    Section 351.214(i)(1) of the Department's regulations requires the 
Department to issue preliminary results of a new shipper review within 
180 days of the date of initiation. However, if the Secretary concludes 
that a new shipper review is extraordinarily complicated, the Secretary 
may extend the 180-day period to 300 days under section 351.214(i)(2) 
of the Department's regulations. Because of the problems the respondent 
has encountered in meeting the Department's filing requirements and the 
resultant delay to the analysis and verification, we find this review 
to be extraordinarily complicated.
    Therefore, in accordance with section 351.214(i)(2) of the 
regulations, the Department is extending the 180-day time limit to 300 
days. Since the 300th day falls on a federal holiday, the due date for 
the preliminary results is now the next business day, May 28, 2002. The 
final results will continue to be due 90 days after the date of 
issuance of the preliminary results.

    Dated: December 20, 2001.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Group III.
[FR Doc. 01-32248 Filed 12-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 on Form 10-K of Associated Materials
Incorporated (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, D. Keith LaVanway, Vice President-Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
Secretary 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 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: April 2, 2004       By:  /s/ D. Keith LaVanway
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        D. Keith LaVanway
                                        Vice President-Chief Financial Officer,
                                        Treasurer and Secretary
                                        (Principal Financial Officer and
                                        Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Associated Materials Incorporated and will be retained by Associated
Materials Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
Exhibit
32.1





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 UniTek Global Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “ Company
”), does hereby certify that, to his knowledge:





The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 2, 2010 (the “ Periodic Report ”) of
the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and the
information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




/s/
      C. Scott HiseyC.
      Scott Hisey
                      Chief
      Executive Officer
                      (Principal
      Executive
Officer)




/s/
      Ronald J. LejmanRonald
      J. Lejman
                      Chief
      Financial Officer and Treasurer
                      (Principal
      Financial
Officer)




November
16, 2010




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Periodic Report
or as a separate disclosure document.





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to UniTek Global Services, Inc. and will be retained by UniTek Global
Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Harold DAMPER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-60385

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 30, 2010.

Gaines H. Cleveland, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Gulfport, MS, Billups S. Allen, Law Office of Billups S. Allen, Flora, MS, Giles Wood Bond, Jr., Richard Terrell Starrett, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Harold Damper, Stafford, AZ, pro se.

Before JOLLY, GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Harold Damper, federal prisoner # 14313-112, moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(e)(2) motion for reduction of sentence based on the retroactive amendment to the crack cocaine Sentencing Guidelines. Damper was convicted of aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. The district court denied Damper’s § 3582(c)(2) motion because application of the crack cocaine amendments would not have changed his guidelines range since he was held accountable for 83.03 kilograms of cocaine base. The district court also denied Damper’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal, certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith.

The district court correctly determined that Damper was not eligible for a sentence reduction because application of the crack cocaine amendments would not have resulted in a change to Damper’s sentence. *See*§ 3582(c)(2). To the extent Damper seeks to challenge his original sentencing calculation, it is not cognizable in the context of a § 3582(c)(2) motion. *See United States v. Whitebird,*55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir.1995). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Damper’s motion to reduce his sentence. *See United States v. Boe,*117 F.3d 830, 831 (5th Cir.1997).

Given the forgoing, Damper has failed to show that his appeal involves “legal points arguable on their merits.” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, the motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 *&*n. 24 (5th Cir.1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41417 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

J ESUS SANTANA

- PINA, also known as Jesus Santana, also known as Jesus Santana Pena, also known as Jesus Sanatana, also known as Jesus Pina Santana, also known as Jesus P. Santana, also known as Jesus Pen Santana, also known as Jesus Pena Santana, also known as Je sus Santana Santana , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:14

- CR

- 21

- 1

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Santana

- Pina has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Santana

- Pina h a s not filed a resp onse. We have reviewed

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 21 , 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41417 Document: 00513556441 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2016No. 15

- 41417

2 counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdra w is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-41417 Document: 00513556441 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
# WORK ZONE SAFETY PRESS RELEASE: INDIANA

**FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: [Date]**

**CONTACT: [Name, Phone Number, E-Mail]**

**[Organization] Supports the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Work Zone Safety Outreach Campaign in Indiana**

**[City, State]** – **[Organization]** announced today it is joining efforts to help reduce large truck crashes in works zones by supporting a state-wide work zone safety outreach campaign led by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). **[Organization]** calls on all drivers to “share work zones safely” by staying alert, obeying traffic signs, and allowing all vehicles extra space while driving through Indiana’s active work zones.

Throughout the campaign FMCSA will amplify safety messages through outlets such as billboards and audio ads, reaching commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers traveling through work zones including:

· **Borman Expressway:** Northwest Indiana (I-80/94)

· **I-65:**North of Indianapolis

· **I-69:** Southwest of Indianapolis along SR 37

· **North Split:** Central Indiana

· **I-465 & I-69:** Central Indiana on the northeast side

· **Sherman Minton Bridge:**Southern Indiana connecting New Albany with Louisville 

“We are pleased to be a part of an effort to remind not only CMV drivers, but all those on Indiana’s roadways to slow down and pay attention when driving through work zones,” said **[spokesperson].** “There is a clear need to raise awareness on work zone safety. We’re proud to be known as the Crossroads of America, but we still need everyone to do their part to prevent roadway crashes.” 

Indiana borders several states including Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois, which also leads to extensive CMV freight traffic on Interstates 65 and 70, the Borman Expressway (I-80/94), and the Indiana Toll Road (I-80/90). Of the nearly 4,000 documented crashes in Indiana work zones in 2019, more than 1,000 of them involved a CMV – slightly above 25%. This and other strong statistics demonstrate the importance of work zone safety outreach in Indiana, for the collective effort to reduce work zone crashes and save lives. 

For more information on work zone safety, visit the campaign website. 

**###**

[INSERT BOILERPLATE]

# image1.png
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           6,199
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,630
<ALLOWANCES>                                       420
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,490
<PP&E>                                         129,263
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 112,558
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,079
<BONDS>                                         46,855
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,608
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   112,558
<SALES>                                         53,711
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,106
<CGS>                                           39,210
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,097
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    699
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                699
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       699
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05


</TABLE>
(First Circuit — Hamilton Co., O., Circuit Court

Jan. Term, 1898.)

Before Cox, Swing and Smith, JJ.

#### CHARLES J. PUERRUNG et al. v. THE CARTER-CRUME COMPANY.

Section 148c, R. S., providing that foreign corporations complying therewith shall not he subject to process of attachment on the ground of non-residence, held to be constitutional and valid.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.

The plaintiffs brought suit for $750 against the CarterOrume Company, and garnished funds in the hands of Diem *&*Wing, the attachment being secured on the ground that the defendant company was a foreign corporation and a non-resident of the state. At the trial below Judge Sayler dissolved the attachment.

*G. W. Baker,*for Plaintiff in Error.

*Kittredge & Wilby,*contra.

Smith, J.;

Cox and Swing, JJ., concur.

We are of the opinion that the judgment in this case should be affirmed; that section 148c, Revised Statutes, which in effect provides that in actions brought in this state against foreign corporations which have complied with the provisions of said statute they shall not be subject to process of attachment, under section 5521, Revised Statutes, or any law of Ohio, on the ground that it is a foreign corporation or a non-resident of the state, is a valid and constitutional law.
109 A.3d 217

#### IN THE MATTER OF LAWRENCE B. SACHS, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 017701983).

March 3, 2015.

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented on the motion for reinstatement to practice of LAWRENCE B. SACHS of MILLSTONE TOWNSHIP, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1983, and who was temporarily suspended from the practice of law by Order of this Court filed February 24, 2015, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the motion is granted, and LAWRENCE B. SACHS is reinstated to the practice of law effective immediately.
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 Lithium Technology Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Amir Elbaz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 21, 2007



/s/ Amir ElbazAmir ElbazChief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 2, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 66]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-32184]



[[Page 66]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER02-581-000]


New England Power Pool; Notice of Filing

December 26, 2001.
    Take notice that on December 21, 2001, the New England Power Pool 
(NEPOOL) Participants Committee filed for acceptance materials (1) to 
implement alternative payment and financial assurance arrangements with 
Enron power Marketing, Inc. (EPMI), Enron energy Marketing Corp. 
(EEMC), and Enron Eneergy Service, Inc. (EESI) with respect to 
transactions occurring on and after December 21, 2001 and (2) to 
terminate immediately and automatically the participation by EPMI, EEMC 
and EESI, as the case may be, as members in NEPOOL should there be a 
failure to make a required payment under the filed arrangements. Those 
arrangements are defined in a term sheet that will be reflected in 
definitive Standstill Agreements which NEPOOL states will be submitted 
to the Commission. A December 21, 2001 effective date was requested for 
the arrangements.
    The Participants Committee states that copies of these materials 
were sent to the New England state governors and regulatory commissions 
and the Participants in NEPOOOL.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's rules of practice 
and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before the comment date. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``RIMS'' 
link, select ``Docket#'' and follow the instructions (call 202-208-2222 
for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-filing'' link.
    Comment Date: January 4, 2002.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-32184 Filed 12-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

BAC 6735-01

 

June 12, 2015

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                10:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 24, 2015

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20004 (enter from  F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommission will consider and act upon the following in open session: *Secretaryof Labor v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., et al.,*Docket Nos. VA 2013-275, *etal*.**(Issues include whether a workplace examination must be“adequate” under the standard in question.)

 

 

Any person attending this meeting who requires specialaccessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                EmogeneJohnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

                                                Relay/ 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                SarahL. Stewart

                                                DeputyGeneral Counsel