alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1217.88 OMB Control numbers.

The control numbers assigned to the information collection requirements by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, are OMB control number 0505-0001 (Board nominee background statement) and OMB control number 0581-0093.

[84 FR 50300, Sept. 25, 2019]
| 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                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. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:                /s/                Harvey L. Weiss                     | Dated:                November 16, 2006 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
| Harvey                L. Weiss                                            |                                    |
| President                and Chief Executive Officer                      |                                    |
| (Principal                Executive and Financial and Accounting Officer) |                                    |
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0356 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-SW-067-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

                        FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANCORP, INC

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Farmers & Merchants
Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Barbara J. Britenriker, Chief
Financial Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as added
by 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirement 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.

     Date: February 16, 2007


                                        /s/ Barbara Britenriker
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Barbara Britenriker
                                        Chief Financial Officer


                                       70
#### James Talcott, Inc., Respondent, v Beaton Builders, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Marine Midland Realty Credit Corporation et al., Appellants.

— Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered March 22, 1979 in Ulster County, which denied a motion by defendant Marine Midland Realty Credit Corporation for summary judgment against plaintiff. On June 16, 1970, defendant Beaton Builders, Inc. (Beaton), a housing developer, leased for a proposed development 61 acres of land in the Town of Esopus, Ulster County, from defendant Esopus Airport, Inc. (Airport), and thereafter, on November 7, 1973, plaintiff James Talcott, Inc., loaned Beaton $350,000 secured by a mortgage on all 61 acres. Prior to this loan, the Airport and Beaton had contracted, on September 23, 1973 in an agreement which was not recorded, that the Airport would subordinate its interest in the leased property to a lender and transfer fee ownership of a parcel consisting of .476 acre of the property to defendant Town of Esopus for the construction of a water tower to serve Beaton’s development. It subsequently transpired, in accordance with this unrecorded agreement, that on June 10, 1974 the Airport and Beaton conveyed their respective interests in the .476 acre to the Town, and a water tower was constructed on the site. When Beaton’s development of the property later failed and Beaton did not comply with the terms of its mortgage, plaintiff commenced the instant foreclosure action in June of 1977 and at Special Term was granted a summary judgment of foreclosure with respect to all of the property still covered by the mortgage, with the exception of the .476 acre which had been conveyed to the Town. As for this latter parcel, both the motion of defendant Marine Midland Realty Credit Corporation (Marine) for summary judgment prohibiting foreclosure thereon and plaintiff’s cross motion for a summary judgment of foreclosure were denied, and Marine and the Town of Esopus now appeal. We hold that the order of Special Term should be affirmed and, in so ruling, we would initially note that this appeal is properly before us even if we concede, *arguendo,*that, as asserted by plaintiff, Marine cannot properly bring the appeal because it has no interest in the subject matter thereof. Surely, the Town of Esopus would be aggrieved by an order of foreclosure on its water tower site, and, accordingly, it may pursue the appeal (CPLR 5511; *Triangle Paciñc Bldg. Prods. Corp. v National Bank of North Amer.,*62 AD2d 1017). Since factual issues are presented as to the nature and extent of plaintiff’s knowledge of the earlier unrecorded agreement at the time the mortgage was executed, the court correctly denied the motions for the drastic remedy of summary judgment as to the water tower site *(Andre v Pomeroy,*35 NY2d 361). Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
#### § 1724.10 Standard forms of contracts for borrowers.

The standard loan agreement between RUS and its borrowers provides that, in accordance with applicable RUS regulations in this chapter, the borrower shall use standard forms of contracts promulgated by RUS for construction, procurement, engineering services, and architectural services financed by a loan made or guaranteed by RUS. This part implements these provisions of the RUS loan agreement. Subparts A through E of this part prescribe when and how borrowers are required to use RUS standard forms of contracts for engineering and architectural services. Subpart F of this part prescribes the procedures that RUS follows in promulgating standard contract forms and identifies those contract forms that borrowers are required to use for engineering and architectural services.

[63 FR 58284, Oct. 30, 1998]
1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 95-20714

Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

MARIA MARTA CISNEROS,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(CR-H-95-195-4)

______________________________________________________

(October 10, 1995)

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Appellant, Maria Marta Cisneros, challenges the conditions

fixed by the district court for her release by having filed a

notice of appeal from that order and by filing in this Court an

Emergency Motion For Release Pending Trial. The motion is denied

and the order appealed from affirmed.

Cisneros was indicted for conspiracy to assist and attempting

to assist the escape of certain convicted felons from two Texas

county jails, and for assisting two of them to prevent or hinder
2

their punishment. At her initial appearance the magistrate judge

set her bond at $5,000,000 and ordered detention until the bond was

posted. Appellant moved for review. The district court granted

the motion, held a hearing and thereafter conditioned her release

upon posting a cash or surety bond of $5,000,000. He found that,

considering the charges, the proximity to the border and the fact

that conviction would carry a substantial prison sentence, there

was substantial risk that Appellant would flee, and that she was a

danger to the community.

Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting her detention and the factual findings of the district

court. Appellant has not furnished a transcript of the detention

hearing. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 9(a) requires that an

appellant who questions the factual basis for the district court's

order file a transcript of any release proceedings in the district

court or an explanation of why a transcript has not been obtained.

Rule 9.3 of this Court implements the Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure. Cisneros' counsel, in a letter to this Court, states

that obtaining a transcript of the hearing would cause undue delay

and asks this Court to proceed without a transcript. We are

obviously unable to reexamine the sufficiency of the evidence and

whether or not it supports the factual findings of the district

court without a transcript. Accordingly, Appellant's motion for

release pending trial is DENIED and the decision of the district

court is AFFIRMED. 
3
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Share with Youth: #ApprenticeshipWorks      

# Share with Youth: #ApprenticeshipWorks

These resources promote inclusive apprenticeship program models that meet employer needs by attracting a diverse array of candidates, including people with disabilities. ODEP's #ApprenticeshipWorks Guides introduce youth, educators, service providers, and businesses to the benefits and opportunities of inclusive apprenticeship. The #ApprenticeshipWorks Video Series demonstrates how apprenticeship works for job seekers and employers. These videos feature apprentices with and without disabilities and their apprenticeship sponsors participating in inclusive programs. 

http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/youth/Apprenticeship.htm?utm_source=Youth.gov&utm_medium=federal-links&utm_campaign=Share-with-Youth
Appeal No. 79-333.

#### Joseph Prete *v.*Leo P. Baronian *et al.*

On February 27, 1980, plaintiff was ordered to appear before this court on Monday, April 7, 1980, at 9:30 a.m. to show cause why his appeal in the above-entitled case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution for failure to have filed a brief in accordance with Rule 16 of the rules of this court. Since plaintiff failed to appear to show cause pursuant *925to this order, his appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of prosecution.

*John A. Varone, Matthew J. Zito,*for plaintiff. *Edwards ir Angelí, Stephen O. Meredith,*for Intervenors-Defendants.
#### In the Matter of Miracle Mile Associates et al., Respondents, v Department of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York et al., Respondents, City of Rochester et al., Appellants, and South Town Plaza, Inc., Intervenor-Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Petitioners in this article 78 proceeding seek to vacate a declaratory ruling of the General Counsel of the Department of Environmental Conservation which held that their proposed shopping center project in the Town of Henrietta was subject to the requirements of the Freshwater Wetlands Act (ECL, art 24, eff Sept. 1, 1975). As Special Term noted, and all parties apparently concede, counsel for the department erroneously relied on ECL 24-1305 (subd [c]) in ruling that petitioners were subject to the terms of the statute. The pertinent subdivision was subdivision (b) which states that the provisions of the act do not apply to any land development which previously received a "final approval” from the appropriate local government authority. "Final approval” means "in the case of a site plan not involving the subdivision of land, approval by the appropriate body * * * of [the town] of the site plan.” Petitioners contend that their property is exempt because they received "final approval” of the site for their proposed shopping center from the town board in 1974. Appellants contend that the board’s action could not qualify as final approval because no site plan was required under town ordinances and none was submitted or finally approved. Petitioners’ proposal included plans, drawings and renderings submitted to the town board and explained at the public hearing by their engineers and architects. The material was considered by the town board and it was a necessary part of the application to rezone. It constituted a "site plan” within the intendment of the statute and it was considered as such by the town board. At the hearing, counsel for petitioners stated that a *808final ruling on the project was necessary so that petitioners could proceed with contracts and lease arrangements and the town board expressly gave that "final approval” by its resolution of December 4, 1974. It was the only body in the town then authorized to do so (Town Law, § 274-a, eff 1976). The board could properly elect to condition the zone change, as it did, on its subsequent review of the location of traffic exits, petitioners’ compliance with the existing drainage ordinances, landscaping, etc. (see *Albright v Town of Manlius,*28 NY2d 108; *Church v Town of Islip,*8 NY2d 254; 1 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice [2d ed], § 8.13). Its decision to do so, however, did not alter the fact that the site plan was submitted to the board, considered by it and, as its resolution stated, "approved without the need for further site plan approval.” The site plan having been approved prior to the effective date of the Freshwater Wetlands Act, petitioners were not required to comply with the act’s provisions. (Appeals from judgment of Monroe Supreme Court—art 78.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Moule, JJ. [98 Misc 2d 519.]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<CIK>                          0000792986
<NAME>               Computer Power, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                            1
<CURRENCY>                            USD
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1
<CASH>                             67,300
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                   1,492,597
<ALLOWANCES>                     (179,778)
<INVENTORY>                     1,018,098
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   45,204
<PP&E>                          1,462,071
<DEPRECIATION>                 (1,199,725)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  2,705,767
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           3,099,615
<BONDS>                         2,235,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           26,027
<OTHER-SE>                     (2,654,875)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    2,705,767
<SALES>                         9,537,967
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                9,537,967
<CGS>                           7,518,306
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   7,518,306
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                2,323,189
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 (303,528)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                390,759
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (694,287)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (694,287)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                     (694,287)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.27)
        

</TABLE>
§ 1709.124 Grant award procedures. ( a ) *Notification of applicants.* The Agency will notify all applicants in writing whether they have been selected for a grant award. Applicants that have been selected as finalists for a competitive grant award will be notified in writing of their selection and advised that the Agency may request additional information in order to complete environmental review requirements in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, and to meet other pre-award conditions.
( b ) *Letter of conditions.* The Agency will notify each applicant selected as a finalist in writing setting out the amount of grant funds and the terms and conditions under which the grant will be made and requesting that the applicant indicate in writing its intent to accept these conditions.
( c ) *Applicant's intent to meet conditions.* Upon reviewing the conditions and requirements in the letter of conditions, the selected applicant must notify the agency in writing within the time period indicated, of its acceptance of the conditions, or if the proposed certain conditions cannot be met, the applicant must so advise the Agency and may propose alternate conditions. The Agency must concur with any changes proposed to the letter of conditions by the applicant before the application will be further processed.
( d ) *Grant agreement.* The Agency and the grantee must sign a grant agreement acceptable to the Agency prior to the advance of funds.
[70 FR 5351, Feb. 2, 2005, as amended at 81 FR 11026, Mar. 2, 2016]
| Community Oriented Policing SummitExecutive Office for Weed and Seed Meeting, April 18-20, 2000, Dallas,TexasFindings from Working Dinner RoundtablesSharing ApproachesOpening Remarks, Morning PlenaryPanelLuncheon Address - Reaching theCommunityOcala, Florida, Case StudyResearch on Community PolicingOpen-discussion and Synopsis
Steve Rickman, Director, Executive Office for Weed andSeed, U.S. Department of Justice, welcomed the 53 attending police chiefsand facilitators.  He said that he stood in awe of what police departmentshad been able to do in the last several years in connection with collaborationsfor community policing.  It was a common saying that the police werethe "eyes and ears of the community," but he would add that they were atthe heart of the community as well.  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|