alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 7329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01724]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #16826 and #16827; OKLAHOMA Disaster Number OK-
00144]


Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public 
Assistance Only for the State of Oklahoma

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Oklahoma 
(FEMA-4575-DR), dated 12/21/2020.
    Incident: Severe Winter Storm.
    Incident Period: 10/26/2020 through 10/29/2020.

DATES: Issued on 01/13/2021.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 02/19/2021.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 09/21/2021.

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: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
Oklahoma, dated 12/21/2020, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Alfalfa, Blaine, Comanche, Custer, Ellis, Garfield, 
Grant, Jackson, Kay, Lincoln, Major, McClain, Pawnee, Stephens, 
Tillman, Washita

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Cynthia Pitts,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2021-01724 Filed 1-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT (1O)(a)

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
<PAGE>

                        Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Auditors"
in the Statements of Additional Information and to the use of our reports
(1) dated January 28, 2000 with respect to the financial statements of certain
subaccounts of PFL Endeavor VA Separate Account, which are available for
investment by contract owners of the Endeavor  Variable Annuity, (2) dated
January 28, 2000 with respect to the financial statements of certain subaccounts
of PFL Endeavor VA Separate Account, which are available for investment by
contract owners of the Endeavor ML Variable Annuity, (3) dated February 4, 2000
with respect to the financial statements of the subaccounts of the PFL Endeavor
Target Account, and (4) dated February 18, 2000 with respect to the statutory-
basis financial statements and schedules of PFL Life Insurance Company, included
in Post-Effective Amendment No. 21 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4
No. 33-33085) and related Prospectuses of The Endeavor Variable Annuity and The
Endeavor ML Variable Annuity.

                                     /s/ Ernst & Young

Des Moines, Iowa
April 24, 2000
Exhibit 32(a)








CERTIFICATION FURNISHED 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-Q of Progress Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William D. Johnson, 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:




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




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











/s/ William D. Johnson


William D. Johnson


Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer


August 7, 2009








This certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
#### 1852.245-72 Liability for Government property furnished for repair or other services.

As prescribed in 1845.107-70(c), insert the following clause:

# Liability for Government Property Furnished for Repair or Other Services (JAN 2011)

(a) This clause shall govern with respect to any Government property furnished to the Contractor for repair or other services that is to be returned to the Government. Such property, hereinafter referred to as “Government property furnished for servicing,” shall not be subject to FAR 52.245-1, Government Property.

(b) The official accountable recordkeeping and financial control and reporting of the property subject to this clause shall be retained by the Government. The Contractor shall maintain adequate records and procedures to ensure that the Government property furnished for servicing can be readily accounted for and identified at all times while in its custody or possession or in the custody or possession of any subcontractor.

(c) The Contractor shall be liable for any loss, damage, or destruction of the Government property furnished for servicing when caused by the Contractor's failure to exercise such care and diligence as a reasonable prudent owner of similar property would exercise under similar circumstances. The Contractor shall not be liable for loss, damage, or destruction of Government property furnished for servicing resulting from any other cause except to the extent that the loss, damage, or destruction is covered by insurance (including self-insurance funds or reserves).

(d) The Contractor shall hold the Government harmless and shall indemnify the Government against all claims for injury to persons or damage to property of the Contractor or others arising from the Contractor's possession or use of the Government property furnished for servicing or arising from the presence of that property on the Contractor's premises or property.

(End of clause)

[76 FR 2006, Jan. 12, 2011]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

CHICAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL
of CARPENTERS PENSION FUND, et al.,
Plaintiffs, Case 12 cv 3834.
Judge Pallmeyer

y

RICK CLARK d/b/a R & W CLARK CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
and
RICK CLARK d/b/a FORTMEYER CONSTRUCTION CO.,

SS SSS SS Se SY

Defendant.

MOTION TO REINSTATE THE CASE AND ENTER JUDGMENT

Now come Plaintiffs, the Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters Pension
Fund, et al., by their attorney, David Whitfield, of Whitfield McGann &
Ketterman, and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court reinstate the case
and enter final judgment for the amounts found to be owed. In support of the

motion, the Plaintiffs state as follows:

1 Plaintiffs filed their complaint on May 17, 2012, and good service of
summons occurred on August 3, 2012. (Exhibit A, Affidavits of Service)

2 At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants have been bound
by the provisions of a Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Trust Agreements
which created the Trust Funds. (Exhibit B — Signed Agreement)

3. This action arises under Section 502 of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act and Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act. (29 U.S.C. §§1132
and 185). Jurisdiction is founded on the existence of questions arising
thereunder.

4. Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into an Agreed Order of
Dismissal on June 19, 2015. (Exhibit C - Agreed Order of Dismissal)

1


5. The Defendants breached Paragraph 1 of the agreed Order of
Dismissal by failing to maintain the agreed upon monthly installment payments
to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants owes the Plaintiffs $31,852.44 of the Agreed
Order of Dismissal. (Exhibit D — Sworn Declaration of John Libby)

6. Paragraph 3 of the Agreed Order of Dismissal provides Plaintiffs’
the right to seek entry of a judgment if Paragraph 1 is breached. (Exhibit C -

Agreed Order of Dismissal)
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray:

a) That the Defendants be ordered to submit payment of $31,852.44 to
the Plaintiffs.

b) That Plaintiffs have such other and further relief as by the Court
may be deemed just and equitable all at the Defendant's costs
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1132(g)(2)(E).

By: /s/ David Whitfield

Attorney for Plaintiffs

David Whitfield

Whitfield McGann & Ketterman

111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60601

T: (312) 251-9700 F: (312) 251-9701
Firm File Number N9174.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7161

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JEROME WILLIAM STONE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District

Judge. (CR-94-80, CA-96-336-R)

Submitted: November 26, 1996 Decided: January 9, 1997

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome William Stone, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying as

premature his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994),

amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. The

district court's order is modified to reflect that Appellant's

motion is denied without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1994).

Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability and affirm on

the reasoning of the district court, as modified. United States v.

Stone, Nos. CR-94-80; CA-96-336-R (W.D. Va. June 14, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****History, 2000 Census ofpopulation and housing**
 
Volumes: 0102
 
SuDoc Number:C 3.2:H 62/8/V.1-2
Item Number:0146 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000686018
 
January 10, 2020
Transport Transports 

Canada Canada

 TP 7245E

 

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

The following airworthiness directive (AD) may be applicable to an aircraft which our records indicate is registered in your name. ADs are issued pursuant to Canadian 

Aviation Regulation (CAR) 521 Division X. Pursuant to CAR 605.84 and the further details of CAR Standard 625, Appendix H, the continuing airworthiness of a Canadian registered aircraft is contingent upon compliance with all applicable ADs. Failure to comply with the requirements of an AD may invalidate the flight authorization of the aircraft. Alternative means of compliance shall be applied for in accordance with CAR 605.84 and the above-referenced Standard. 

This AD has been issued by the Continuing Airworthiness Division (AARDG), National Aircraft Certification Branch, Transport Canada, Ottawa, telephone 613 952-4357.

Pursuant to CAR 202.51 the registered owner of a Canadian aircraft shall, within seven days, notify the Minister in writing of any change of his or her name or address. 

To request a change of address, contact the Civil Aviation Communications Centre (AARC) at Place de Ville, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N8, or 1-800-305-2059, or www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/communications/centre/ address.asp 

24-0022 (01-2005)

1/1 No.

CF-2012-14R1

Issue Date 

9 May 2012 

Number: CF-2012-14R1 

Subject: Crosstubes – Life Limitation

Effective: 22 May 2012 

Revision: Supersedes Airworthiness Directive CF-2012-14 

Applicability: Dart Aerospace Ltd. high gear aft crosstube part number D412-664-203 approved 

under Transport Canada Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SH01-9 and installed 

on Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. (BHTI) helicopter models 412, 412EP or 412CF. 

Note: The above crosstubes are also known to be approved under Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) STC SR01298NY and European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA) STC IM.R.S.01304.

Compliance: Within 30 days from the effective date of this AD, unless already accomplished. 

Background: Five failures of the Dart Aerospace high gear aft crosstube have been reported. These 

failures could lead to an unsafe condition during landing. 

Based on in-service reports, it has been determined that Dart Aerospace Limited’s high 

gear aft crosstube part number (P/N) D412-664-203 requires a life limitation of 10 000 

landings. 

This revision was issued to clarify the applicability section of the original issue of this AD.

Corrective 

Actions: 

Airworthiness Limitation Amendment 

Amend “Chapter 4 – Airworthiness Limitation” of the Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness (ICA) ICA-D212-664 by inserting Revision 8 dated 20 October 2011. This 

Revision introduces a life limit of 10 000 landings for crosstube P/N D412-664-203.

Remove from service the affected crosstubes with more than 10 000 landings. 

Authorization: For the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY

Derek Ferguson 

Chief, Continuing Airworthiness 

Contact: Bogdan Gajewski, Continuing Airworthiness, Ottawa, telephone 613-952-4357, facsimile 

613-996-9178 or e-mail ADs@tc.gc.ca or any Transport Canada Centre.
- FIPSE Competitive Grant Evaluation Requirements (November 2010)
- Evaluation Plan Requirements for New Grantees MS Word (41K)   (November 2010) 
- What a FIPSE Evaluation is NOT (November 2010) 
- Finding a FIPSE Project Evaluator (November 2010) 
- Guidance on the Role of the Independent Outside Evaluator (November 2010) 
- **Review of the FIPSE Comprehensive Program - 2004**    The U. S. Department of Education's Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) completed this review of the Comprehensive Program in 2004.  The document may be helpful to potential applicants and others interested in the impact of the FIPSE Comprehensive Program. Emphasized are characteristics of effective Comprehensive Program projects: responsiveness to local concerns related to issues at the national level; institutionalization of project initiatives; evaluation and subsequent dissemination of reforms; and evidence of project impact in other settings.

FIPSE Home
Additional Indirect Cost Information and Example for Grants under Restricted Rate Programs 

If you are applying for a grant from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) under a Restricted Rate Program that is subject to a

statutory “supplement not supplant” restriction, you are required to use a restricted indirect cost rate. See the Education Department 

General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), 34 CFR 75.563 [discretionary grants] at 

http://www.ed.gov/policy/fund/reg/edgarReg/edlite-part75e.html or 34 CFR 76.563 [formula grants] at 

http://www.ed.gov/policy/fund/reg/edgarReg/edlite-part76f.html, as applicable, and 34 CFR 76.564 through 76.569 at 

http://www.ed.gov/policy/fund/reg/edgarReg/edlite-part76f.html. 

Restricted rates for State Educational Agencies (SEA) are included on the SEA’s negotiated indirect cost rate agreement. Restricted 

rates for Local Educational Agencies are provided by the SEA, using a method approved by ED. The restricted rate requirements also 

apply to any subgrants from the prime recipient. 

All applicants must use the restricted rate included on their negotiated indirect cost rate agreement. Applicants for discretionary grants 

that are not a State or Local government and do not have a negotiated restricted rate, may use the 8% rate described at §76.564(c )(2). 

If an applicant’s calculated restricted rate is less than 8%, the lower rate must be used for the application’s budget. The 8% rate in 

§76.564(c)(2) must also be multiplied by the modified total direct cost base described in §76.569. 

For grants under Restricted Rate Programs, §76.569 requires that grantees multiply their restricted indirect cost rate by: 

“Total direct costs of the grant minus capital outlays, subgrants, and other distorting or unallowable items as specified 

in the grantee's indirect cost rate agreement.” 

Commonly, such a procedure is referred to as multiplying by a modified total direct cost base. 

Below is a simplified example for calculating indirect costs for a Restricted Rate program using budget categories from the ED 524 

form, Budget Information – Non-Construction Programs. The ED 524 and Instructions can be found at: 

http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html

For the purposes of this example, a 6% restricted rate from a negotiated indirect cost rate agreement is used to calculate indirect costs. 

1. Personnel 150,000 

2. Fringe Benefits 50,000 

3. Travel 10,000 

4. Equipment 5,400 

5. Supplies 600 

6. Contractual 3,700 

7. Construction - 

8. Other (tuition) 72,000 

9. Total Direct Costs 291,700 

Calculate Modified Total Direct Cost Base 

Total Direct Costs 291,700 

Less: 

 Equipment 5,400 

 Tuition 72,000 

 77,400 

Modified Total Direct Cost Base: 214,300 

Multiply $214,300 by 6% restricted rate: 12,858 

10. Indirect Costs (using 6% restricted rate) 12,858

11. Training Stipends - 

12. Total Costs 304,558
----

----

----

----

----

| PURCHASER:                                                     |   | PHOTOMEDEX, INC. |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------|
|                                                           |   |             |   |
|                                                           |   |             |   |
|   /s/ Christina L. Allgeier      |   |             | By:  /s/ Richard J. DePiano                          |
|                                                           |   |             |   |
| Name: Christina L. Allgeier                                    |   |             | Name: Richard J. DePianoTitle: Chairman of the Board of Directors |

----

----
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Thunder Mountain Gold Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric T. Jones, Secretary/Treasurer, Director and Chief Financial Accounting 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:  (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 results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Eric T. Jones By  ____________________________________ Eric T. Jones Secretary/Treasurer and Director and Chief Financial Accounting Officer Date:  April 15, 2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Angelo D’Angelo, Appellant.

Order unanimously modified to provide that the appellant’s motion to withdraw the application for a writ of error *coram nobis*without prejudice be granted, and as modified affirmed. Memorandum: The appellant’s attorney having been discharged, the County Court in the exercise of a proper discretion should have granted the motion for permission to withdraw the pending application. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Comity Court denying defendant’s motion, after a hearing, to set aside a judgment entered May 1, 1950, convicting him of assault, second degree, robbery, first degree, and kidnapping.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
19.602-2 Issuing or denying a Certificate of Competency (COC). Within 15 business days (or a longer period agreed to by the SBA and the contracting agency) after receiving a notice that a small business concern lacks certain elements of responsibility, the SBA Area Office will take the following actions: ( a ) Inform the small business concern of the contracting officer's determination and offer it an opportunity to apply to the SBA for a COC. (A concern wishing to apply for a COC should notify the SBA Area Office serving the geographical area in which the headquarters of the offeror is located.)
( b ) Upon timely receipt of a complete and acceptable application, elect to visit the applicant's facility to review its responsibility. ( 1 ) The COC review process is not limited to the areas of nonresponsibility cited by the contracting officer.
( 2 ) The SBA may, at its discretion, independently evaluate the COC applicant for all elements of responsibility, but may presume responsibility exists as to elements other than those cited as deficient.
( c ) Consider denying a COC for reasons of nonresponsibility not originally cited by the contracting officer.
( d ) When the Area Director determines that a COC is warranted (for contracts valued at $25,000,000 or less), notify the contracting officer and provide the following options: ( 1 ) Accept the Area Director's decision to issue a COC and award the contract to the concern. The COC issuance letter will then be sent, including as an attachment a detailed rationale for the decision; or
( 2 ) Ask the Area Director to suspend the case for one or more of the following purposes: ( i ) To permit the SBA to forward a detailed rationale for the decision to the contracting officer for review within a specified period of time.
( ii ) To afford the contracting officer the opportunity to meet with the Area Office to review all documentation contained in the case file and to attempt to resolve any issues.
( iii ) To submit any information to the SBA Area Office that the contracting officer believes the SBA did not consider (at which time the SBA Area Office will establish a new suspense date mutually agreeable to the contracting officer and the SBA).
( iv ) To permit resolution of an appeal by the contracting agency to SBA Headquarters under 19.602-3. However, there is no contracting officer's appeal when the Area Office proposes to issue a COC valued at $100,000 or less.
( e ) At the completion of the process, notify the concern and the contracting officer that the COC is denied or is being issued.
( f ) Refer recommendations for issuing a COC on contracts greater than $25,000,000 to SBA Headquarters.
[62 FR 44820, Aug. 22, 1997]