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

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5057 

To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to modify fees and 

funding for certain small business refinancing loans and loans to qualified 

State or local development companies, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2022 

Mr. COONS (for himself and Mrs. SHAHEEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to 

modify fees and funding for certain small business refinancing loans and loans to qualified State or local development companies, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘504 Loan Availability 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5057 IS

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS TO FEES AND FUNDING FOR CER2 TAIN SMALL BUSINESS REFINANCING LOANS 

3 AND LOANS TO QUALIFIED STATE OR LOCAL 

4 DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES. 

5 Title V of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 

6 (15 U.S.C. 695 et seq.) is amended— 

7 (1) in section 502(7)(C) (15 U.S.C. 

8 696(7)(C))— 

9 (A) in clause (ii)— 

10 (i) in subclause (I), by adding ‘‘and’’ 

11 at the end; 

12 (ii) in subclause (II), by striking ‘‘; 

13 and’’ and inserting a period; and 

14 (iii) by striking subclause (III); and 

15 (B) in clause (v), by striking ‘‘a total of 

16 $7,500,000,000 of financing’’ and inserting 

17 ‘‘the total amount described in section 511 in 

18 financing’’; and 

19 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

20 ‘‘SEC. 511. MAXIMUM FUNDING LEVEL. 

21 ‘‘The Administrator may provide not more than a 

22 total, in the aggregate, of $15,000,000,000 for each fiscal 

23 year of financing to guarantee loans under section 503 

24 and loans authorized under section 502(7)(C).’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 5057 IS

1 SEC. 3. SUNSET. 

2 Effective on October 1, 2025, title V of the Small 

3 Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 695 et seq.) 

4 is amended— 

5 (1) in section 502(7)(C) (15 U.S.C. 696(7)(C)), 

6 by striking clause (v); and 

7 (2) by striking section 511, as added by section 

8 2 of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2


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



I, Philip Gay, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Grill Concepts, Inc. on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended March 28,
2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Grill Concepts, Inc.


                                        By: _______________
                                        Name: Philip Gay
                                        Title: Chief Financial Officer
                                        October 13, 2004


                                        1
<PAGE>
### [§7263. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1952(n)(3)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1846]

Section, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 862, provided penalties for violations related to cotton futures.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective on 90th day after Oct. 4, 1976, see section 1952(o) of Pub. L. 94–455, set out as an Effective Date note under section 15b of Title 7, Agriculture.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60989-60990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22979]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission of OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by November 
15, 2004.
    Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 
Supplement (DFARS) Section 223.570, Drug-free work force, and the 
associated clause at DFARS 252.223-7004; OMB Control Number 0704-0336.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 18,012.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 18,012.
    Average Burden per Response: 48 hours.
    Annual Burden Hours: 980,096.
    Needs and Uses: This information collection requires DoD 
contractors to maintain records regarding drug-free work force programs 
provided to contractor employees. The information is used to ensure 
reasonable efforts to eliminate the unlawful use of controlled 
substances by contractor employees.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for profit and not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Frequency: Recordkeeping.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jacqueline Zeiher.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Zeiher at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should

[[Page 60990]]

be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/ESCD/Information Management Division, 1225 
South Clark Street, Suite 504, Arlington, VA 22202-4326.

    Dated: October 5, 2004.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 04-22979 Filed 10-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Become a Saugus Iron Works B.A.R.K. Ranger

Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-cv-22406-FAM

WINDY LUCIUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUNGRY HOWIE'S PIZZA & SUBS, INC.,

Defendant.

/

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff WINDY LUCIUS (“Plaintiff”) respectfully submits this Notice of Settlement, and 

informs the Court as follows:

1. Plaintiff has reached an agreement with Defendant HUNGRY HOWIE'S PIZZA & 

SUBS, INC. (“Defendant”) to resolve the claims against it.

2. The parties will be filing settlement documents with the Court within sixty (60) 

days.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

FBN: 628166

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201

Miami, FL 33156

T: 305-351-2014

cc@cunninghampllc.com

Case 1:20-cv-22406-FAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 25, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system.

/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

Case 1:20-cv-22406-FAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 120.412 Other services Lenders may provide Borrowers.

Subject to § 120.140 Lenders, their Associates or the designees of either may provide services to and contract for goods with a Borrower only after full disbursement of the loan to the small business or to an account not controlled by the Lender, its Associate, or the designee. A Lender, an Associate, or a designee providing such services must do so under a written contract with the small business, based on time and hourly charges, and must maintain time and billing records for examination by SBA. Fees cannot exceed those charged by established professional consultants providing similar services. *See also* § 120.195.
(No. 1027

Claimant awarded $1,871.95 with interest.)

#### State Mutual Life Assurance Company of Worcester, Mass., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed January 19, 1927.*

Privilege *tax*— when *claimant entitled to refund.*Where through a mistake the State has collected the privilege tax twice, claimant is entitled to a refund of the overpayment.

Irving T. F. Ring, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for a refund of excess privilege tax on insurance premiums paid by mistake to the Department of Trade and Commerce of the State of Illinois. Claimant is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Massachusetts for the purpose of issuing life insurance, and is licensed to do business in Illinois. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ©f New York is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of New York for the purpose of issuing con- ■ tracts for life insurance, and is also licensed to do1 business in Illinois. ' A portion of the insurance written in Illinois by claimant was re-insured in the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, this reinsurance being legal under the provisions of Chapter 73, revised statute of Illinois. The amount of premiums collected on the insurance that was reinsured in the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company was $93,597.38. On May 25, 1925, claimant paid a 2% tax on this sum, said tax amounting to $1,871.95. On June 22, 1925, the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company also paid a 2% tax on this same amount and for the same premiums.

It thus appears that a double tax has been collected by the State from the claimant and the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, and that the State has received $1,871.95 more than is due it. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has filed a disclaimer in favor of claimant, .and the Attorney General on behalf of the State has filed a written consent to an award in favor of claimant for that amount.

We, accordingly, award claimant the sum of $1,871.95, together with interest thereon at *3%*per annum from May 25, 1925, until paid.
###### Editorial Note on Part 124

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 124 appear at 72 FR 50040, Aug. 30, 2007, and 76 FR 8253, Feb. 11, 2011.

#### § 124.101 What are the basic requirements a concern must meet for the 8(a) BD program?

Generally, a concern meets the basic requirements for admission to the 8(a) BD program if it is a small business which is unconditionally owned and controlled by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals who are of good character and citizens of and residing in the United States, and which demonstrates potential for success.

[76 FR 8254, Feb. 11, 2011]
§ 45.11 What are the form and content requirements for documents under this subpart? ( a ) *Form.* Each document filed in a case under this subpart must: ( 1 ) Measure 81 ⁄ 2 by 11 inches, except that a table, chart, diagram, or other attachment may be larger if folded to 81 ⁄ 2 by 11 inches and attached to the document;
( 2 ) Be printed on just one side of the page (except that service copies may be printed on both sides of the page);
( 3 ) Be clearly typewritten, printed, or otherwise reproduced by a process that yields legible and permanent copies;
( 4 ) Use 11 point font size or larger;
( 5 ) Be double-spaced except for footnotes and long quotations, which may be single-spaced;
( 6 ) Have margins of at least 1 inch; and
( 7 ) Be bound on the left side, if bound.
( b ) *Caption.* Each document filed under this subpart must begin with a caption that sets forth: ( 1 ) The name of the case under this subpart and the docket number, if one has been assigned;
( 2 ) The name and docket number of the license proceeding to which the case under this subpart relates; and
( 3 ) A descriptive title for the document, indicating the party for whom it is filed and the nature of the document.
( c ) *Signature.* The original of each document filed under this subpart must be signed by the representative of the person for whom the document is filed. The signature constitutes a certification by the representative that he or she has read the document; that to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief, the statements made in the document are true; and that the document is not being filed for the purpose of causing delay.
( d ) *Contact information.* Below the representative's signature, the document must provide the representative's name, mailing address, street address (if different), telephone number, facsimile number (if any), and electronic mail address (if any).
#### § 4.1194 Burden of proof in suspension or revocation proceedings.

In proceedings to suspend or revoke a permit, OSM shall have the burden of going forward to establish a prima facie case for suspension or revocation of the permit. The ultimate burden of persuasion that the permit should not be suspended or revoked shall rest with the permittee.

[43 FR 34386, Aug. 3, 1978. Redesignated at 67 FR 61510, Oct. 1, 2002]
### **CHAPTER 178—PROFESSIONAL AND AMATEUR SPORTS PROTECTION**

Sec.
3701.
Definitions.
3702.
Unlawful sports gambling.
3703.
Injunctions.
3704.
Applicability.
VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

POTW removal (%) = 0-25 via biodeg

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk

Sorption to soils/sediments = low - moderate

PBT Potential: P2B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = moderate - rapid

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is nil through the skin for the neat material, 

and poor through the skin for the material in solution, based on physical/chemical properties. 

Absorption is good through the lung and GI tract based on analogs. There is concern for irritaion 

to the eye, skin, and lung, based on information in the PMN MSDS. There also is possible 

concern for dermal and respiratory sensitization, based on analog test data ( : positive 

for dermal sensitzation in the mouse local lymph node assay).

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 15

daphnid 48-h LC50 1.4

green algal 96-h EC50 0.14

fish _ chronic value 0.84

daphnid _ chronic 

value

0.26

algal _ chronic 

value

0.033

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for zinc salts; SAR chemical class 

= ainc salt with Zn; MW 360; solid with mp unknown (P); pH7; effective 

concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness 

<150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

3

SARs zinc salts

SAR Class zinc salt with Zn

Ecotox Category None
Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: J. Kwiat
§ 3503.20 What if another Federal agency manages the lands I am interested in? ( a ) *Public domain lands.* BLM will issue a permit or lease for public domain lands where the surface is administered by another Federal agency only after consulting with the surface management agency. Some laws applicable to public domain lands require us to obtain the consent of the surface management agency before we issue a lease or permit.
( b ) *Acquired lands.* For all lands not subject to paragraph (a) of this section where the surface is managed by another Federal agency, we must have written consent from the surface management agency before we issue permits or leases. The surface management agency may request further information about surface disturbance and reclamation before granting its consent.
( c ) *Appeal.* If a surface management agency refuses to consent or imposes conditions on your permit or lease, you may appeal its decision under that agency's appeal provisions. If you notify BLM within 30 days after receiving BLM's decision denying or conditioning your permit or lease that you have appealed the surface management agency's decision, we will suspend the time for filing an appeal under 43 CFR parts 4 and 1840 until the surface management agency's decision is final and not subject to further administrative or judicial review.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-08-31T02:48:39-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Noram Gaming
and Entertainment, Inc. and Subsidiary June 30, 1997 financial statements and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                         0000894555
<NAME>                        Noram Gaming & Entertainment, Inc

       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                  JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                                        60,819
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                   16,427
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              98,403
<PP&E>                                                        196,282
<DEPRECIATION>                                                (87,108)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                219,529
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         480,145
<BONDS>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                      13,926
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                                    (324,580)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  219,529
<SALES>                                                       502,842
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              502,842
<CGS>                                                         109,884
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 109,884
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              414,109
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            9,927
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (881,973)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (31,078)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (881,973)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (0.07)
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bonifacio FELIX-SALAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-41606.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided March 3, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jeffery Alan Babcock, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Bonifacio Felix-Salas (Felix) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for being found in the United States following deportation. Felix argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it treats prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors. Felix’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Felix contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Felix properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

Felix also contends that the district court erred in sentencing him pursuant to the mandatory guidelines regime held unconstitutional in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 764-65, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The sentencing transcript is devoid of evidence that the district court would have imposed the same sentence under an advisory regime, and, therefore, the Government has not borne its burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the district court’s error was harmless. *See United States v. Walters,*418 F.3d 461, 464 (5th Cir.2005).

*849CONVICTION AFFIRMED; VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESEN-TENCING.

*

 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.
Editorial Note on Part 120
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 120.1000 Risk-Based Lender Oversight. ( a ) *Risk-Based Lender Oversight.* SBA monitors, supervises, examines, regulates, and enforces laws against SBA Supervised Lenders and the SBA operations of SBA Lenders and Intermediaries.
( b ) *Scope.* Most rules and standards set forth in this subpart apply to SBA Lenders as well as Intermediaries; however, SBA has separate regulations for enforcement grounds and formal enforcement actions for Intermediaries at §§ 120.1425 and 120.1540.
[85 FR 14781, Mar. 16, 2020]
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

Wildflowers