alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Breadcrumb

-  Inicio 
-  Federal Advisory Committees 

## Section navigation

-  Ubicaciones de la SBA 
-  Gobierno transparente 
-  SBA Newsroom 
-  Work for SBA 
-  Organización    -  Liderazgo de la SBA 
  -  Comuníquese con la SBA 
  -  SBA initiatives 
  -  Forms and documents 
  -  Desempeño 
  -  Conmemoraciones 
  -  Federal advisory committees 
-  Oversight and advocacy 
-  Information in other languages 

Parte o todo el contenido en esta página disponible solo en inglés.

# Federal advisory committees

----

## Contenido

----

Advisory committees are groups created by statute. The President or agency heads provide advice and recommendations to relevant government agencies. Statutes or presidential directives can create exceptions to this general rule. There are five primary sources of authority for SBA's advisory committees:
                  - The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
                  - The General Services Administration regulations implementing FACA
                  - The Small Business Act
                  - Standard operating procedures
                  - The advisory committees' charters

To determine their scope and duties, SBA officials consider the committee's charter. Advisory committees may not act in ways inconsistent with their charters.

## SBA advisory committees

Advisory committees take two forms. Advisory committees created by statute or the President are “non-discretionary.” Advisory committees created by an agency head are “discretionary.”

SBA's non-discretionary advisory committees are:
                  - The  Interagency Task Force on Veterans Small Business Development  (IATF)
                  - The  National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board
                  - The  Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs
                  - The  Regional Regulatory Fairness Boards
                  - The  National Women’s Business Council
                  - The  Audit and Financial Management Advisory Committee

SBA's discretionary committees are:
                  - The National Advisory Council
                  - The District Advisory Councils
                  - The  Council on Underserved Communities
                  - The  Investment Capital Advisory Committee  (ICAC)
                  - The  Invention, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship Advisory Committee  (IIEAC)

## Additional resources

Find additional committee resources and answers to frequently asked questions.
                  - Nominate someone for a federal advisory committee
                  - Contact SBA about a federal advisory committee
                  - Common federal advisory committee questions
                  - FACA management overview
HomeLatest FilingsPrevious Page

    - SEC Home  »
    - Search the Next-Generation EDGAR System  »
    - Company Search  »
    - Current Page

235 WEST GALENA STREETMILWAUKEE WI 53212         

235 WEST GALENA STREETMILWAUKEE WI 53212         626-914-4141

Investment Managers Series Trust CIK#: 0001318342 (see all company filings)
State location: WI | State of Inc.: **DE**formerly: Claymore Equity Trust (filings through 2005-05-26)formerly: Claymore Trust (filings through 2007-11-23)Get **insider transactions** for this **issuer**.File Number: **812-15403**(List all Funds and Classes/Contracts for Investment Managers Series Trust)

||
||
§ 39.12 Review of state action. ( a ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any authority of any state to take action to ensure the safety, adequacy, and reliability of electric service within that state, as long as such action is not inconsistent with any Reliability Standard, except that the State of New York may establish rules that result in greater reliability within that state, as long as such action does not result in lesser reliability outside the state than that provided by the Reliability Standards.
( b ) Where a state takes action to ensure the safety, adequacy, or reliability of electric service, the Electric Reliability Organization, a Regional Entity or other affected person may apply to the Commission for a determination of consistency of the state action with a Reliability Standard. ( 1 ) The application shall: ( i ) Identify the state action;
( ii ) Identify the Reliability Standard with which the state action is alleged to be inconsistent;
( iii ) State the basis for the allegation that the state action is inconsistent with the Reliability Standard; and
( iv ) Be served on the relevant state agency and the Electric Reliability Organization, concurrent with its filing with the Commission.
( 2 ) Within ninety (90) days of the application of the Electric Reliability Organization, the Regional Entity, or other affected person, and after notice and opportunity for public comment, the Commission will issue a final order determining whether the state action is inconsistent with a Reliability Standard, taking into consideration any recommendation of the Electric Reliability Organization and the state.
( c ) The Commission, after consultation with the Electric Reliability Organization and the state taking action, may stay the effectiveness of the state action, pending the Commission's issuance of a final order.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1413 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



# Document

Number: 

# 106)11-1-10

7 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/9/20083:11:25PM

Sheet 106 of 114P. 2 'SB*** 

# Du n & Bradstree t
® 

# D&BMILLIO N DOLLAR DIRECTOR

Y America' s Leadin g Publi c & Private Companie s 

# H- 1- 101



# SERIE S 199 9

Thi s boo k i s th e propert yo f Du n & Bradstreet , Inc. . a compan yo f Th e Du n & Bradstree t Corporatio n 89 9 Eato n Avenue , Bethlehem , P A18025-000 1 H*-»cHiun , Copyrigh t ©

199 9 byDu n & Bradstreet , Inc./Printe d i n U.S.A . 'SS N 0734-286 1 SBN . 1-56203-716- 1



### \
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 37 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed export to the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom 

of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Republic 

of France of certain defense articles and services. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the issuance of an export license with respect to any 

4 of the following proposed exports to the United Arab 

5 Emirates, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 

6 Northern Ireland, or France is prohibited: 

7 (1) The transfer of the following defense arti8 cles, including defense services and technical data, 

9 described in Executive Communication 1425 (EC– 

10 1425) submitted to Congress pursuant to section 

11 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 

12 2776(c)) and published in the Congressional Record 

13 on June 3, 2019: The proposed transfer of 44,000 
2 

†SJ 37 ES 

1 GBU–12 Paveway II Kits and the proposed transfer 

2 of 16,000 GBU–10 Paveway II Kits. 

Passed the Senate June 20, 2019. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 37 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the prodefense articles and services. Ireland, and the Republic of France of certain United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern posed export to the United Arab Emirates, the
FROM: THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF MEAGHER,

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. JOHN A. HARTMAN, Defendant.

NO. CR-89-01 DECISION

DATED this 8th day of March, 1990.

On May 2, 1989, the Defendant was sentenced to Count I, Intimidation, ten (10) years;; Count II, Attempted Mitigated Deliberate Homicide, eighteen (18) years plus two (2) years for the use of a dangerous weapon to run consecutively; Counts I and II shall be served concurrently; dangerous designation.

On March 8, 1990, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and was represented by Lois Adams, of the Montana Defender Project and Mark Yeshe, Attorney at Law from Helena. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it if such is possible. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence imposed shall be affirmed.

The reason for the decision is based upon Rule 17 of the Sentence Review Division’s Rules, the district court judge is presumed correct.
§ 35.105 Self-evaluation. ( a ) A public entity shall, within one year of the effective date of this part, evaluate its current services, policies, and practices, and the effects thereof, that do not or may not meet the requirements of this part and, to the extent modification of any such services, policies, and practices is required, the public entity shall proceed to make the necessary modifications.
( b ) A public entity shall provide an opportunity to interested persons, including individuals with disabilities or organizations representing individuals with disabilities, to participate in the self-evaluation process by submitting comments.
( c ) A public entity that employs 50 or more persons shall, for at least three years following completion of the self-evaluation, maintain on file and make available for public inspection: ( 1 ) A list of the interested persons consulted;
( 2 ) A description of areas examined and any problems identified; and
( 3 ) A description of any modifications made.
( d ) If a public entity has already complied with the self-evaluation requirement of a regulation implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, then the requirements of this section shall apply only to those policies and practices that were not included in the previous self-evaluation.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1190-0006) [56 FR 35716, July 26, 1991, as amended by Order No. 1694-93, 58 FR 17521, Apr. 5, 1993]
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  SBA Leadership 
-  Kate Aaby 

#   Kate Aaby

Associate Administrator

Office of Performance, Planning and the Chief Financial Officer

Kate Aaby serves as the Associate Administrator for Performance, Planning and Chief Financial Officer (AAPP/CFO) for SBA where she isresponsible for providing advice and guidance to Agency senior officials regarding financial management, strategic planning, performance management, program analysis and evaluation, and budget and internal control programs.

In her prior role, Kate served as Director for Guidehouse’s Public Sector Financial Services practice (previously known as PwC Public Sector) where she led large-scale Federal loan program implementations and business development efforts across the SBA and World Bank Group. She also established PwC’s first Project Management Office in Bangalore, India to support U.S.-based Advisory project management priorities. Prior to PwC, Kate served as a Program Examiner for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), leading accounts for the Economics Affairs Branch of the International Affairs Division.

Kate has a Masters of Public Administration (MPA) from New York University and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Maryland in Political Science and Anthropology. Her certifications include Harvard Manage Mentor (HMM) Certification, Agile Certified Scrum Master (CSM), and Project Management Professional (PMP) Certification.
|  |                   |
|--|-------------------|
|  | HomePrevious Page |

|  |  | Investment Company Act of 1940 - Section 15(a) |
|--|--|------------------------------------------------|
### §1c. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, act Aug. 8, 1953, ch. 384, §2, 67 Stat. 496; Pub. L. 91–383, §2(b), Aug. 18, 1970, 84 Stat. 826, related to general administration provisions; system defined; particular areas. See sections 100501 and 100755 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Quotemedia, Inc. (the Company)
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Keith J. Randall, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my best knowledge and
belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                     
|----------------------- |  | --------------------
|                        | 
|By:                     |  | /s/ Keith J. Randall
|Keith J. Randall       
|Chief Financial Officer
|November 14, 2007
###### Editorial Note on Part 28

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear at 76 FR 76873, Dec. 9, 2011.

#### § 28.66 Admissibility.

Evidence or testimony may be excluded from consideration by the administrative judge if it is irrelevant, immaterial, unduly repetitious or protected by privilege. The administrative judge is not bound by formal evidentiary rules but may rely on the Federal Rules of Evidence for guidance.

[68 FR 69302, Dec. 12, 2003]
Editorial Note on Part 0
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 0 appear at 73 FR 73 FR 54947, Sept. 24, 2008.

§ 0.137 Designating officials to perform the functions and duties of certain offices in case of absence, disability or vacancy. ( a ) In case of vacancy in the office of Attorney General, or of his absence or disability, the Deputy Attorney General shall, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 508(a) perform the functions and duties of and act as Attorney General. When by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office, neither the Attorney General nor the Deputy Attorney General is available to exercise the duties of the office of Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General shall, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 508(b), perform the functions and duties of and act as Attorney General. In the event of vacancy, absence, or disability in each of these offices, the Solicitor General shall perform the functions and duties of and act as Attorney General.
( b ) Every office within the Department to which appointment is required to be made by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate (“PAS office”) shall have a First Assistant within the meaning of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998. Where there is a position of Principal Deputy to the PAS office, the Principal Deputy shall be the First Assistant. Where there is no position of Principal Deputy to the PAS office, the First Assistant shall be the person whom the Attorney General designates in writing.
( c ) In the event of a vacancy in the office of the head of an organizational unit that is not covered by paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, the ranking deputy (or an equivalent official) in such unit who is available shall perform the functions and duties of and act as such head, unless the Attorney General directs otherwise. Except as otherwise provided by law, if there is no ranking deputy available, the Attorney General shall designate another official of the Department to perform the functions and duties of and act as such head.
( d ) The head of an organizational unit of the Department not covered by paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section is authorized, in the case of absence from office or disability, to designate the ranking deputy (or an equivalent official) in the unit who is available to act as head. If there is no deputy available to act, any other official in such unit may be designated. Alternatively, in his discretion, the Attorney General may designate any official in the Department to act as head when a head who is not covered by paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section is absent or disabled.
[Order No. 755-77, 42 FR 59384, Nov. 17, 1977, as amended by Order No. 1043-84, 49 FR 4469, Feb. 7, 1984; Order No. 1097-85, 50 FR 25708, June 21, 1985; Order No. 1858-94, 59 FR 13883, Mar. 24, 1994; Order No. 2205-99, 64 FR 6526, Feb. 10, 1999. Redesignated by Order No. 2650-2003, 68 FR 4926, Jan. 31, 2003. Further redesignated by AG Order No. 3229-2010, 75 FR 70123, Nov. 17, 2010]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Administrative Proceedings Rulings

Release No. 6847 / May 4, 2022

Administrative Proceeding

File No. 3-18483

In the Matter of

Timothy C. Scarpino

Order Following

Second Status Report

The Division of Enforcement submitted a second status report noting no 

substantive change to the status of the related action, which remains pending. 

The Division recommends that I continue to defer setting a procedural

schedule in this matter and proposes submitting a further status report by July 

29, 2022, or sooner as events warrant.

I ADOPT the Division’s proposal. The Division’s next status report is due 

July 29, 2022. 

/s/ James E. Grimes

Chief Administrative Law Judge
Order filed September 30, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-21-00542-CV

IN RE RENEE SIZEMORE, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

505th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 19-DCV-259360

ORDER

Relator’s appendix to the petition for writ of habeas corpus contains unredacted 

sensitive information of relator’s minor children. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.9(a)(3). Parties 

are required to redact all sensitive information in documents filed in this court unless the 

inclusion of the sensitive data is specifically required by a statute, court rule, or 

administrative regulation. Id. 9.9(b). There is no statute, court rule, or administrative 

regulation requiring the inclusion of sensitive data applicable to this original proceeding. 

Therefore, we order relator to redact all sensitive information from the documents 

included with her appendix to the petition and refile them in this court on or before 

October 8, 2021.
2

Additionally, relator must file with the petition a sufficient record to establish the 

right to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). 

Rule 52.7(a)(2) requires the relator to file with the petition “a properly authenticated 

transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any 

exhibits offered into evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in

connection with the matter complained.” Tex. R. App. P. 52(a)(2).

The trial court’s order indicates that before holding relator in contempt, on April 

23, June 29, July 30, August 19, August 23, and September 27, 2021, the trial court heard 

Movant’s Amended Motion for Enforcement of Possession or Access. The trial court's 

contempt order states “[t]he record of testimony was duly reported by the court reporter 

for the 505th Judicial District Court.” Relator’s petition, however, is not accompanied by 

a reporter’s record of the hearings held in this matter. See Tex. R. App. P. 52(a)(2).

By this order, the Court gives relator notice that the petition will be dismissed 

unless an amended petition is filed that addresses the record issues identified above on or 

before October 8, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Hassan and Poissant.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

December 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 132267 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132267 COA: 260356; 243126 Kent CC: 01-008381-FH TARVIS ANTHONY CUTTS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e May 6, 2004 and August 22, 2006 judgments of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questi ons presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1218 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 29, 2006

Clerk
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

In the Matter of Samuel R. Drose, Former Magistrate for 

Marion County, Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2018-000563 

Opinion No. 27813 

Submitted May 25, 2018 – Filed June 13, 2018 

PUBLIC REPRIMAND 

John S. Nichols, Disciplinary Counsel, and Joseph P. 

Turner, Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of 

Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 

Samuel R. Drose, of Marion, pro se. 

PER CURIAM: In this judicial disciplinary matter, Respondent and the Office 

of Disciplinary Counsel have entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent 

(Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules for Judicial Disciplinary 

Enforcement (RJDE) contained in Rule 502 of the South Carolina Appellate Court 

Rules (SCACR). In the Agreement, Respondent admits misconduct and consents 

to the imposition of a public reprimand pursuant to Rule 7(b), RJDE, Rule 502, 

SCACR. We accept the Agreement and issue a public reprimand. The facts, as set 

forth in the Agreement, are as follows. 

Facts 

Respondent was arrested on May 14, 2014, after he took possession of a substance 

which he believed was oxycodone, a Schedule II controlled substance. Respondent 

resigned his position as a part-time Magistrate on the same day. 
 

Law 

Respondent admits that by his conduct he has violated Canon 1A (a judge should 

maintain high standards of conduct) and Cannon 2A (a judge shall respect and 

comply with the law and shall act at all times to promote public confidence in the 

integrity of the judiciary) of the Code of Judicial Conduct found in Rule 501, 

SCACR. 

Respondent also admits that by violating the Code of Judicial Conduct, he has also 

violated Rule 7(a)(1), RJDE, Rule 502, SCACR. 

Conclusion 

We find Respondent's misconduct warrants a public reprimand.1 Accordingly, we 

accept the Agreement and publicly reprimand Respondent for his misconduct. 

PUBLIC REPRIMAND. 

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ. concur. 

1

 A public reprimand is the most severe sanction the Court can impose when a 

judge no longer holds judicial office. See In re Gravely, 321 S.C. 235, 467 S.E.2d 

924 (1996).
TRANSITIONS CAN BE HARD.

Help your kids avoid the pressures of trying marijuana and 

other drugs by being a good source of information.

Though marijuana laws are changing in some states for adults, all forms of 

marijuana can be harmful for a child’s growing brain. Start talking with your kids 

early about the risks. For tips on how—and when—to begin the conversation, visit:

www.underagedrinking.samhsa.gov

SMA-18-5087