alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 4.82 Amendments. ( a ) Any permittee may file an application for amendment of its permit, including any extension of the term of the permit that would not cause the total term to exceed eight years. (Transfer of a permit is prohibited by section 5 of the Federal Power Act.) Each application for amendment of a permit must conform to any relevant requirements of § 4.81 (b), (c), and (d).
( b ) If an application for amendment of a preliminary permit requests any material change in the proposed project, public notice of the application will be issued as required in § 4.32(d)(2)(i).
( c ) If an application to extend the term of a permit is submitted not less than 30 days prior to the termination of the permit, the permit term will be automatically extended (not to exceed a total term for the permit of eight years) until the Commission acts on the application for an extension. The Commission will not accept extension requests that are filed less than 30 days prior to the termination of the permit.
( d ) At the end of the extension period granted under paragraph (a) of this section, the Commission may issue an additional permit to the permittee if the Commission determines that there are extraordinary circumstances that warrant the issuance of the additional permit.
[Order 413, 50 FR 11685, Mar. 25, 1985, as amended by Order 499, 53 FR 27002, July 18, 1988; Order 800, 79 FR 59110, Oct. 1, 2014; Order 857, 84 FR 7991, Mar. 6, 2019]
sec10k123115_ex10-5a.htm






EXHIBIT 10.5(a)







SCHEDULE A TO EXHIBIT 10.5







The following individual entered into a Salary Continuation Plan with The Ohio Valley Bank Company identified below which is identical to the Salary Continuation Plan, dated December 18, 2012, between Jeffrey E. Smith and The Ohio Valley Bank Company filed herewith.








	
Name

	  	
Date of Salary Continuation Plan


	  	  	  
	
Larry E. Miller

	  	
January 26, 2016
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6524

GILL A. JONES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ROBERT E. WARD, Warden; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON,

Attorney General for South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-2321-17BD)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 5, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gill A. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. J. Pamela Price, SOUTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motions for a default judgment, summary judgment, and to strike

Respondent's responses. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988),

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292

(1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal

as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 BY CFO

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 of Power 3 Medical Products, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
J. Rosinski, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully compiles with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                          /s/ Michael J. Rosinski
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Michael J. Rosinski
                                          Chief Financial Officer,
                                          Power 3 Medical Products, Inc.

November 15, 2004
#### § 227.24 Penalties.

Failure of the lessee to comply with any provisions of the lease, of the operating regulations, of the regulations in this part, orders of the superintendent or his representative, or of the orders of the supervisor or his representative, shall subject the lessee to a penalty of not more than $1,617 per day for each day the terms of the lease, the regulations, or such orders are violated: *Provided,* That the lessee shall be entitled to notice, and hearing within 30 days after such notice, with respect to the terms of the lease, regulations, or orders violated, which hearing shall be held by the supervisor, whose findings shall be conclusive unless an appeal be taken to the Secretary of the Interior within 30 days after notice of the supervisor's decision, and the decision of the Secretary of the Interior upon appeal shall be conclusive.

[22 FR 10622, Dec. 24, 1957, as amended at 81 FR 42481, June 30, 2016; 82 FR 7653, Jan. 23, 2017; 83 FR 5195, Feb. 6, 2018; 84 FR 15101, Apr. 15, 2019; 85 FR 9369, Feb. 19, 2020; 86 FR 7348, Jan. 28, 2021; 87 FR 13156, Mar. 9, 2022; 88 FR 13022, Mar. 2, 2023; 89 FR 18363, Mar. 13, 2024]
Editorial Note on Part 0
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 0 appear at 73 FR 73 FR 54947, Sept. 24, 2008.

§ 0.164 Civil claims that may be closed by Assistant Attorneys General. Assistant Attorneys General are authorized, with respect to matters assigned to their respective divisions, to close (other than by compromise or by entry of judgment) claims asserted by the United States in all cases in which they would have authority to accept offers in compromise of such claims under § 0.160(a), except: ( a ) When for any reason, the closing of a particular claim would, as a practical matter, control or adversely influence the disposition of other claims and the closing of all the claims taken together would exceed the authority delegated by this section; or
( b ) When the Assistant Attorney General concerned is of the opinion that because of a question of law or policy presented, or because of opposition to the proposed closing by the department or agency involved, or for any other reason, the proposed closing should receive the personal attention of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General or the Associate Attorney General, as appropriate.
[Order No. 1958-95, 60 FR 15675, Mar. 27, 1995]
§ 4.7 Findings. ( a ) *Commission determination.* Final action by the Commission will be in the form of an order served upon all parties to the proceeding. One copy of the order will be furnished to the Secretary of Treasury by the Commission.
( b ) *Adjustments to licensee's books.* The licensee's books of account for the project shall be adjusted to conform to the actual legitimate cost as revised by the order of the Commission. These adjustments and the project may be audited by Commission representatives, as scheduled.
[Order 53, 44 FR 61948, Oct. 29, 1979]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                                GIANT GROUP, LTD.
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             1995                 1994                 1993
                                             ----                 ----                 ----
<S>                                        <C>                  <C>                  <C>     
Net income (loss)                          ($22,332)            $20,471              ($2,639)

Interest expense reduction,
net of tax (2)                                 -                    342                 -
                                           --------             -------              -------
Income (loss) attributable
to common shares                           ($22,332)            $20,813              ($2,639)
                                           ========             =======              =======
Weighted average number
of common shares (1) (2)                  5,110,000           6,463,000            5,180,000

Primary earnings (loss)
per common share                             ($4.37)             $ 3.22               ($0.51)
</TABLE>

(1)  Assumes issuance of common shares for exercise of outstanding common stock
     options in 1994.

(2)  Reduction of interest expense, net of tax relates to assumed retirement of
     debt with option exercise proceeds in excess of that amount required to
     retire twenty percent of the Company's outstanding stock in 1994.
### §235. Sale or shipment of barrel of less capacity than standard; punishment

It shall be unlawful to sell, offer, or expose for sale in any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or to ship from any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia to any other State, Territory, or the District of Columbia or to a foreign country, a barrel containing fruits or vegetables or any other dry commodity of less capacity than the standard barrels defined in section 234 of this title, known as the third, half, and three-quarters barrel, and any person guilty of a willful violation of any of the provisions of sections 234 to 236 of this title shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and be liable to a fine not to exceed $500, or imprisonment not to exceed six months, in the court of the United States having jurisdiction: Provided, however, That no barrel shall be deemed below standard within the meaning of said sections when shipped to any foreign country and constructed according to the specifications or directions of the foreign purchaser if not constructed in conflict with the laws of the foreign country to which the same is intended to be shipped.

(Mar. 4, 1915, ch. 158, §2, 38 Stat. 1186.)
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 109 (Friday, June 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32727-32728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12462]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9911-21-OEI]

Agency Information Collection Activities; OMB Responses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) responses to Agency clearance requests in compliance with the

[[Page 32728]]

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). An agency may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Courtney Kerwin at (202) 566-1669 or 
email at Kerwin.Courtney@epa.gov and please refer to the appropriate 
EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OMB control numbers for EPA regulations 
are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

OMB Responses to Agency Clearance Requests

OMB Approvals

    EPA ICR Number 2456.02; Willingness to Pay for Improved Water 
Quality in the Chesapeake Bay (Revised); was approved on 04/11/2014; 
OMB Number 2010-0043; expires on 09/30/2015; Approved with change.
    EPA ICR Number 2405.01; Underground Storage Tank: Information 
Request Letters, Pacific Southwest Region (Region IX) (New); 40 CFR 
part 280; was approved on 04/11/2014; OMB Number 2050-0210; expires on 
08/31/2014; Approved.
    EPA ICR Number 1230.29; Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 
Non-Attainment New Source Review (Renewal); 40 CFR 51.160-51.164; 40 
CFR 51.166; 40 CFR part 52.21; 40 CFR 51.165; 40 CFR part 51 Appendix 
S; 40 CFR 52.24; and 40 CFR 49.166-49.173 and 49.151-49.161; was 
approved on 04/02/2014; OMB Number 2060-0003; expires on 04/30/2017; 
Approved with change.

    Dated: May 16, 2014.
Erin Collard,
Acting Director, Collections Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-12462 Filed 6-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
§ 5.27 Amendment of application. ( a ) *Procedures.* If an Applicant files an amendment to its application that would materially change the project's proposed plans of development, as provided in § 4.35 of this chapter, an agency, Indian tribe, or member of the public may modify the recommendations or terms and conditions or prescriptions it previously submitted to the Commission pursuant to §§ 5.20-5.26. Such modified recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions must be filed no later than the due date specified by the Commission for comments on the amendment.
( b ) *Date of acceptance.* The date of acceptance of an amendment of application for an original license filed under this part is governed by the provisions of § 4.35 of this chapter.
( c ) *New and subsequent licenses.* The requirements of § 4.35 of this chapter do not apply to an application for a new or subsequent license, except that the Commission will reissue a public notice of the application in accordance with the provisions of § 4.32(d)(2) of this chapter if a material amendment, as that term is used in § 4.35(f) of this chapter, is filed.
( d ) *Deadline.* All amendments to an application for a new or subsequent license, including the final amendment, must be filed with the Commission and served on all competing applicants no later than the date specified in the notice issued under § 5.22.
[Order 2002, 68 FR 51121, Aug. 25, 2003; 68 FR 61743, Oct. 30, 2003]
#### § 1311.5 What is TVA's obligation with respect to federal interagency coordination?

TVA, to the extent practicable, consults with and seeks advice from all other substantially affected federal departments and agencies in an effort to assure full coordination between such agencies and TVA regarding programs and activities covered under these regulations.
Editorial Note on Part 0
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 0 appear at 73 FR 73 FR 54947, Sept. 24, 2008.

§ 0.11 Incentive Awards Board. The Incentive Awards Board shall consist of the Deputy Attorney General or a designee of the Deputy Attorney General, who shall be the chairperson, and four members designated by the Attorney General from among the Assistant Attorneys General, bureau heads or persons of equivalent rank in the Department. The duties of the Board shall be: ( a ) Consider and make recommendations to the Attorney General concerning honorary awards and cash awards in excess of $7,500 to be granted for suggestions, inventions, superior accomplishment, or other personal effort which contributes to the efficiency, economy, or other improvement of Government operations or achieves a significant reduction in paperwork.
( b ) Consider and make recommendations to the Attorney General for transmittal to the Office of Personnel Management and the President for Presidential awards under 5 U.S.C. 4504 and 5403.
( c ) Evaluate periodically the effectiveness of the employee recognition program and recommend needed improvements to the Attorney General.
[Order No. 960-81, 46 FR 52340, Oct. 27, 1981, as amended by Order No. 2949-2008, 73 FR 8815, Feb. 15, 2008]
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA
, Respondent
,

v.

FRANK SILVA ROQUE
, Petitioner

.

No. 1 CA

- CR 14

- 0717 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2001

- 095385 The Honorable Mark F. Aceto
, Retired Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’ s Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent

Frank Silva Roque
, Buckeye Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Donn Kessler joined.STATE v. ROQUE Decision of the Court

2 J O N E S
, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Frank Silva Roque petitions this court for review from the summary dismissal of his notice of po st

- conviction relief filed August 15, 2014 . Roque argues the Arizona Supreme Court erred when it addressed a disclosure issue in his case on direct appeal in 2006. See State v. Roque , 213 Ariz. 1 93, 209

- 11, ¶¶ 41, 48

- 50, 52 (2006). Roque asks this court to correct the supreme court’s opinion and order a new trial.

¶2 We deny relief because Roque has failed to present a cognizable claim pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 or otherwise present a colorable claim for relief. This C ourt has no authority to overrule, modify, or disregard a decision of the Arizona Supreme Court. Myers v. Reeb , 190 Ariz. 341, 342 (App. 1997) (“Whether prior decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court are to be disaffirmed is a question f or that court.”) (quoting City of Phx. v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc. , 177 Ariz. 375, 378 (App. 1993))

. ¶3 We grant review but deny relief.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAYSI LETICIA DOMINGUEZ DE

LUCANO; DANIEL ANTONIO

LUCANO DOMINGUEZ, 

Petitioners,

 v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-72644

Agency Nos. A200-571-823

 A200-571-824

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2018** 

San Francisco, California

Before: TASHIMA, RAWLINSON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

FILED

OCT 02 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
Daysi Leticia Dominguez de Lucano,1

a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision

dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

We review for substantial evidence, see Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th

Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of

removal because petitioner failed to show she was persecuted on account of a

protected ground. First, although petitioner was threatened with extortion and

violence by gangs, it was not on account of her membership in a particular social

group. Generalized violence cannot support an asylum claim on the basis of a

protected ground, see Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016, and the BIA properly rejected the

possible social groups of “wealthy Salvadorans” or “returnees” from the United

States to El Salvador. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1138-40 (9th Cir. 2016)

(rejecting “deportees from the United States to El Salvador” as a particular social

group); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (rejecting

1 Petitioner’s son, Daniel Antonio Lucano Dominguez, is listed as a

derivative beneficiary on her asylum application.

2
perceived wealth as a social group). Second, to the extent that petitioner alleges she

was persecuted by her husband on account of her status as a married woman unable

to leave her relationship, substantial evidence supported the BIA’s decision to

dismiss, as petitioner has been separated from her husband since 2008—at least

three years before she came to the United States seeking asylum.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that petitioner failed

to demonstrate a clear probability she will be tortured by the government or with

the government’s acquiescence if returned to El Salvador. See Wakkary v. Holder,

558 F.3d 1049, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Accordingly, petitioner’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims

fail.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of  Neighborhood  Investment,
Ltd.,  on Form  10-QSB for the  period  ending  June 30,  2003 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "REPORT"),  the
undersigned, B. Stephen Bailey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

         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 result of  operations of the
Company.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.