alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #15853 and #15854; Louisiana Disaster Number LA-00087]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of LOUISIANA dated 01/23/2019. *Incident:*
                         Severe Weather and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         12/26/2018 and continuing.
 DATES: Issued on 01/23/2019. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         03/25/2019. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         10/23/2019.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Parishes:*
                     Washington. *Contiguous Parishes/Counties:* Louisiana: Saint Tammany, Tangipahoa. Mississippi: Marion, Pearl River, Pike, Walthall. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.000Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere
7.480Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.740Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.750Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.750*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.740Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.750
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15853 6 and for economic injury is 15854 0. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Louisiana, Mississippi. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Dated: January 23, 2019. Linda E. McMahon, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2019-00313 Filed 1-29-19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Raenore Novelties, Inc., v. Alfred W. Case et al. Raenore Novelties, Inc., v. Superb Stitching Co., . Inc. Raenore Novelties, Inc., v. Ideal Fastener Corporation. Raenore Novelties, Inc., v. Bert Mechur et al. Raenore Novelties, Inc., v. Seal-Plac, Inc. Raenore Novelties, Inc., v. Rena Bernstein et al. Raenore Novelties, Inc., v. Rite Style Trimming, Inc. Raenore Novelties, Inc., v. Stuartab, Inc. Raenore Novelties, Inc., v. Lo-Bell Novelty Incorporated. Raenore Novelties, Inc., v. Ace Placket Company, Inc. Raenore Novelties, Inc., v. Samuel H. Geffner et al.

Present — Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Esther Kovit, Deceased. Abraham Kovit, Respondent; Benjamin Neuwirth, as Executor of Esther Kovit, Deceased, et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ. [193 Misc. 823.]
#### § 23.1 Purpose.

These regulations are intended to comply with 39 U.S.C. 3220(a)(2), and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) guidelines (50 FR 46622), to assist in the location and recovery of missing children through the use of penalty mail.
#### Electronic Amusement Corporation, Respondent, v. Frank Bagozzi, Doing Business as Bagozzi’s Vending Company, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur. (The order denies a motion for change of venue.) Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Page 10 of 19

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(b)

                        KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 1999-A

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE


Bank One, National Association              Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas
fka, The First National Bank of Chicago     fka,  Bankers Trust Company
One Bank One Plaza, Suite 0126              280 Park Avenue 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60670                           New York, NY 10017
Attn: Corporate Trust Administration        Attn: Corporate Trust & Agency Group
Phone: (312) 407-0192                       Structured Finance
Fax:   (312) 407-1708                       Phone: (212) 454-4298
                                            Fax:   (212) 454-2331

Key Bank USA, National Association
800 Superior Ave, 4th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44114
ATTN: Senior Vice President
Key Education Resources
Phone: (216) 828-9342
Fax:   (216) 828-9301


Pursuant to Section 4.09 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement among Key Bank USA,
National Association, as Seller and Administrator, KeyCorp Student Loan Trust
1999A, EFS as Servicer and The First National Bank of Chicago (nka, Bank One,
National Association), as Eligible Lender Trustee, dated as of January 1, 1999
(the "Agreement"), the undersigned hereby certifies that (i) a review of the
activities of EFS as Servicer from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002,
and of its performance under the Agreement has been made, and (ii) to the best
of the undersigned's knowledge, based on the review, EFS as Servicer has
fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period.

The undersigned also hereby certifies that EFS has disclosed to the
Administrator and to the Trust's certified public accountants all significant
deficiencies relating to EFS's compliance with the minimum servicing standards
in accordance with a review conducted in compliance with the Uniform Single
Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar standard as set forth in the
Agreement.


                                              EFS Services, Inc., Servicer


Date: March 18, 2003                          By:   /S/ CHERYL E WATSON
                                                ------------------------------
                                              Name: Cheryl Watson
                                              Title: President
###### Editorial Note on [Subpart B of Part 591](/current/title-5/part-591/subpart-B?toc=1)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart B of part 591 appear at [70 FR 31313](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/70-FR-31313), May 31, 2005.

#### § 591.226 How does OPM apply the CPIs?

(a) OPM uses a three-step process to adjust price indexes by relative annual or biennial changes in the CPIs. For steps 1 and 2, OPM computes the annual change by dividing the CPI from 1 year after the survey by the CPI from the time of the survey. OPM computes the biennial change by dividing the CPI from 2 years after the survey by the CPI from the time of the survey.

(1) *Step 1.* OPM computes the annual or biennial CPI change for the COLA area.

(2) *Step 2.* OPM computes the annual or biennial CPI change for the DC area.

(3) *Step 3.* OPM multiplies the COLA area price index from the last survey by the COLA area CPI change computed in step 1 divided by the DC area CPI change computed in step 2. The adjusted price index is rounded to the second decimal place.

(b) *Example:*

| | 2008 | 2009 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| COLA Area CPI | 172.2 | 174.7 |
| DC Area CPI | 159.7 | 161.9 |
| COLA Area Survey Index | 117.33 | (1) |
| COLA Area CPI Adjusted Index | (2) | 117.42 |
| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 No survey. | | |
| 2 N/A | | |

Computation:

117.33 × (174.7/172.2)/(161.9/159.7) = 117.4159, which would round to 117.42.
#### Frank WOLCOVITCH, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 12133.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued May 19, 1954.

Decided May 27, 1954.

Mr. John J. Dwyer, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Lewis A. Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before BAZELON, FAHY and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in appellant’s conviction on charges of housebreaking and grand larceny. 22 D.C.Code §§ 1801 and 2201 (1951).

Affirmed.
|  | (1)  | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (2)  | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, thefinancial      condition and results of operations of the Company for the six months      ended June 30, 2010 . |
|--|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                       | NF Energy Saving      Corporation |                               |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                       |                              |                               |   |
| Date:      August 16, 2010 | By:                               | /S/      Gang Li                   |   |
|                       |                              | Gang      Li                       |   |
|                       |                              | (Principal Executive      Officer) |   |

----
CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

Solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, Gary Ted Ballard,
the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Western Hemisphere Investments
Corporation; ( the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2003, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) 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/  Gary Ted Ballard
----------------------------------
Gary Ted Ballard

November 14, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
documents authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to registrant and will be
retained by registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 Superior Oil & Gas Co. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about
the date hereof (the “Report”), I, B.J. Sparks, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:





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





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




Date:  May
      19, 2009
              
              /s/ B.J.
    SparksB.J.
      SparksChief
      Executive Officer


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Superior Oil & Gas Co. and will be retained by Superior Oil & Gas Co.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
# L_2014008EN.01000701.xml

| 11.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 8/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 8/7

---

Letter of notification by the European Union to the Republic of San Marino of technical amendment, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania on 1 January 2007 and of Croatia on 1 July 2013, to Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of San Marino providing for measures equivalent to those laid down in Council Directive 2003/48/EC of 3 June 2003 on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments

Sir,

I have the honour to refer to the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of San Marino providing for measures equivalent to those laid down in Council Directive 2003/48/EC on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments.

Due to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania on 1 January 2007 and of Croatia on 1 July 2013, Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of San Marino providing for measures equivalent to those laid down in Council Directive 2003/48/EC on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments requires a technical amendment in the form provided for by Article 20(2), first subparagraph of the Agreement.

Article 20(2), first subparagraph of the Agreement provides that the list of competent authorities in Annex I may be amended simply by notification of the other Contracting Party by San Marino for the authority referred to in (a) therein and by the Community for the other authorities.

I hereby notify you on behalf of the Union that the competent authorities for Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia are:

| — | in Bulgaria: Изпълнителният директор на Националната агенция за приходите or an authorised representative, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Bulgaria: Изпълнителният директор на Националната агенция за приходите or an authorised representative,

| — | in Romania: Președintele Agenției Naționale de Administrare Fiscală or an authorised representative, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Romania: Președintele Agenției Naționale de Administrare Fiscală or an authorised representative,

| — | in Croatia: Ministar financija or an authorised representative |
| --- | --- |

—

in Croatia: Ministar financija or an authorised representative

and that they have to be added into Annex I to the Agreement under letters (aa), (ab) and (ac) respectively after the competent authorities mentioned under letter (z).

Please accept, Sir, the assurance of our highest consideration,

For the European Union,

Heinz ZOUREK

Director-General of the Directorate-General Taxation and Customs Union

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

**@ROAD, INC.CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of @Road, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/Afor the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Martini,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)             TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)             Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| August 9, 2006     |
|-------------------------|
| /s/ MICHAEL MARTINI     |
| Michael Martini         |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES v. THOMPSON.

No. 271, Docket 22984.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued June 8, 1954.

Decided July 6, 1954.

Mary M. Kaufman and Robert Z. Lewis, New York City, for appellant.

J. Edward Lumbard, U. S. Atty., New York City (Lloyd F. MacMahon, New York City, James B. Kilsheimer III, Mount Vernon, N. Y., and Leonard S. Sand, Asst. U. S. Attys., New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before CHASE, Chief Judge, and FRANK and HINCKS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant is one of the defendants whose conviction after a trial by jury on an indictment charging violation of the Smith Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385, was affirmed by this court. United States v. Dennis, 2 Cir., 183 F.2d 201; affirmed 341 U.S. 494, 71 S.Ct. 857, 95 L.Ed. 1137. He was admitted to bail pending the review of our decision by the Supreme Court and absconded after an order on mandate had been entered by the District Court directing him, and others who were convicted with him, to surrender on July 2, 1951, to the United States Marshal for the Southern District of New York. He never did surrender but was apprehended in California on August 27,1953, returned to New York, and after a trial by court pursuant to Rule 42(b) F.R.Cr.Proc. 18 U.S.C.A., was found guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced to imprisonment for four years. 18 U.S.C.A. § 401(3). This appeal is from that conviction and sentence.

On the authority of United States v. Hall, 2 Cir., 198 F.2d 726, we hold that no reversible error has been shown provided there was substantial evidence to support the finding of the trial court as follows;

> “Therefore, viewing the evidence as a whole I find that it has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent Thompson had notice and knowledge of the order of July 2, 1951, made by Judge Ryan and that he wilfully and contumaciously disobeyed the terms of that order.”

The general pattern of the evidence as to this appellant’s knowledge of the order followed that in the Hall case, supra. Sacher’s part in conveying the information to Thompson is not as clearly shown as was his role as Hall’s informant, but despite any uncertainty as to whether Sacher saw Thompson on the afternoon of June 29, 1951, at the headquarters of the communist party in New *546York his testimony and the other evidence showing that Thompson was then there and the circumstances under which this appellant fled soon after the order to surrender was made do provide an adequate evidential basis 'in this record for the above quoted finding.

The sentence imposed, being well within a reasonable exercise of discretion by the trial judge, obviously did not violate the Eighth Amendment, nor has any violation of the Fifth Amendment been shown.

Judgment affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 15
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 15 appear at 62 FR 19669, Apr. 23, 1997.

§ 15.31 Policy. ( a ) The Department of Commerce may indemnify a present or former Department employee who is personally named as a defendant in any civil suit in state or federal court, or other legal proceeding seeking damages against a present or former Department employee personally, for any verdict, judgment or other monetary award which is rendered against such employee, provided that the conduct giving rise to the verdict, judgment or award was taken within the scope of his/her employment and that such indemnification is in the interest of the Department as determined by the Secretary or his/her designee.
( b ) The Department may settle or compromise a personal damage claim against a present or former employee by the payment of available funds at any time provided the alleged conduct giving rise to the personal property claim was taken within the employee's scope of employment and such settlement is in the interest of the Department as determined by the Secretary or his/her designee.
( c ) Absent exceptional circumstances, as determined by the Secretary or his/her designee, the Department will not consider a request either to indemnify or to settle a personal damage claim before entry of an adverse verdict, judgment or award.
( d ) Any payment under this section either to indemnify a present or former Department employee or to settle a personal damage claim shall be contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds of the Department of Commerce.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Burton J. Kaplan, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court of Dutchess County, convicting him of the crime of criminally concealing and withholding stolen and wrongfully acquired property, in violation of section 1308 of the Penal Law, and sentencing him to serve a term of imprisonment. Judgment unanimously affirmed. Appellant contends, *inter alia,*that error was committed by the trial court during the impanelling of the jury. The procedure provided by section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed throughout the selection of the jurors. The record indicates, however, that the appellant’s attorney acquiesced in the procedure adopted until he had exercised sixteen peremptory challenges and the District Attorney had exercised eight. Thereafter the attorney for the appellant objected to the District Attorney’s excusing juror number 5. Apparently the juror had theretofore been excused, but it does not appear from the record when he was excused, or that any objection was made by the appellant’s attorney at the time when the District Attorney interposed his peremptory challenge. After the objection was made, the court directed that the procedure provided by section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be followed. Thereafter the District Attorney interposed, without objection, another peremptory challenge, and the selection of the jury was completed, apparently in the manner provided by the statute. The record indicates that until the objection was made the court understood that the right to challenge jurors had been reserved by both parties, as it lawfully might have been without violating any statutory provision. In the selection of jurors in a criminal action, if either party desires to stand on the order in which challenges shall be made, it should be so indicated to the court. We cannot presume, on the basis of the record presented, that appellant’s attorney insisted on appellant’s rights until the objection heretofore referred to was made, and after the incident specifically complained of had occurred. Thereafter his rights under the statute were accorded him. We find no error, therefore, in the incident complained of *(People*v. *Elliott,*66 App. Div. 179, affd. 172 N. Y. 146), nor do we find any merit in appellant’s other contentions on this appeal. Present — Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate and Beldock, JJ.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Hearth & Home article by Dr. James Houck regarding the proposed NSPS for Residential Wood Heaters.This document can be viewed at the USEPA Docket Center Public Reading Room. Address: 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004. Telephone: 202-566-1744; Fax: 202-566-9744; Email: docket-customerservice@epa.gov
§ 839.801 Do I owe more money if I had a qualifying retirement coverage error and the employee retirement deductions for the new retirement plan are more than what I already paid? ( a ) No, your employer is responsible for paying any additional amount to the Fund. Your employer will not bill you for any additional retirement deductions.
( b ) For qualifying retirement coverage errors corrected under this part, the rules at § 831.111(b) of this chapter (pertaining to employee options when the employer fails to withhold CSRS or CSRS Offset retirement deductions) do not apply.