alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1822.268 Rates, terms, and source of funds. ( a ) *Interest rate.* Upon request of the applicant, the interest rate charged by Rural Development will be the lower of the interest rates in effect at the time of loan approval or loan closing. If an applicant does not indicate a choice, the loan will be closed at the interest rate in effect at the time of loan approval. Interest rates are specified in exhibit B of RD Instruction 440.1 (available in any RD office) for the type assistance involved.
( b ) *Repayment period.* Final payment will be due 2 years after the date of the loan. When necessary to carry out the loan purposes, the national office may authorize extension of maturity dates. As lots are sold before the final due date of the note, the proceeds of the sales will be applied on the account or any prior lien, or, with the prior approval of the national office, used in a manner consistent with the purposes of the loan and the security interest of the Government.
( c ) *Source of funds.* Loans under this subpart will be made as insured loans, except that loans under § 1822.278 to develop building sites for sale in connection with self-help projects will be made as direct loans.
[35 FR 10687, July 1, 1970, as amended at 51 FR 6733, Feb. 26, 1986; 80 FR 9866, Feb. 24, 2015]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6008
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHRIS DEWAYNE JENKINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-162) Submitted: September 9, 2003 Decided: September 25, 2003 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chris Dewayne Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Chris Dewayne Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2000). In criminal cases, the defendant must file his notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); seeUnited States v. Alvarez , 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal period applies). With or without a motion, the district court may grant an extension of time of up to thirty days upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered its order denying the motion for reduction of sentence on November 6, 2002; the ten-day appeal period expired on November 20, 2002. See Fed. R. App. P.4(b)(1)(A), 26. Jenkins filed his notice of appeal after the tenday period expired but within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, we remanded the case to the district court for the court to determine whether Jenkins could demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period. Although the district court ordered Jenkins to provide evidence of excusable neglect or good cause, Jenkins failed to comply with the order. Because the record does not show excusable3 neglect or good cause, we dismiss Jenkins’ appeal as untimely. 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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1924 

To reinstate year-round Federal Pell Grants under the Higher Education 

Act of 1965. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2013 

Mrs. BUSTOS (for herself and Mr. LOEBSACK) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To reinstate year-round Federal Pell Grants under the 

Higher Education Act of 1965. 

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 ‘‘Access to Education 

5 and Training Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FEDERAL PELL GRANTS. 

7 (a) AMENDMENTS.—Section 401(b) of the Higher 

8 Education Act of 1965 ((20 U.S.C. 1070a(b)) is amend9 ed— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1924 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (2)(A)(ii), by striking ‘‘para2 graph (7)(B)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (8)(B)’’; 

3 and 

4 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through 

5 (7) as paragraphs (6) through (8), respectively; and 

6 (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(5)(A) The Secretary shall award a student 

9 not more than two Federal Pell Grants during a sin10 gle award year to permit such student to accelerate 

11 the student’s progress toward a degree or certificate 

12 if the student is enrolled— 

13 ‘‘(i) on at least a half-time basis for a pe14 riod of more than one academic year, or more 

15 than two semesters or an equivalent period of 

16 time, during a single award year; and 

17 ‘‘(ii) in a program of instruction at an in18 stitution of higher education for which the insti19 tution awards an associate or baccalaureate de20 gree or certificate. 

21 ‘‘(B) In the case of a student receiving more 

22 than one Federal Pell Grant in a single award year 

23 under subparagraph (A), the total amount of Fed24 eral Pell Grants awarded to such student for the 

25 award year may exceed the maximum basic grant 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1924 IH

1 level specified in the appropriate appropriations Act 

2 for such award year.’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 subsection (a) shall be effective for award year 2013-2014 

5 and each succeeding award year 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*

#### § 1430.216 Contracts not in conformity with regulations.

If it is discovered that an MILC contract does not comply with this subpart as the result of a misunderstanding by someone who has signed the contract, the contract may be modified by mutual agreement. If the parties to the MILC cannot reach agreement for such modification, it shall be terminated and all payments paid or payable under the contract shall be forfeited or refunded to CCC, except as may otherwise be allowed under § 1430.214.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0154-22

THOMAS GEORGE GRISWOLD, III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

ROCKWALL COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Appellant was charged with stalking by engaging in conduct that is an offense under

section 42.07 and/or engaging in conduct he knew or reasonably should have known the

complainant would regard as threatening bodily injury or death and did cause the

complainant to fear bodily injury or death. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 42.072(a). Appellant filed
Griswold - 2

a pre-trial motion to quash the indictment, arguing the stalking statute is facially unconstitutional as

vague and overbroad due to its incorporation of section 42.07(a)(7) (electronic harassment). The trial

court denied the motion. Appellant was convicted and appealed. The Court of Appeals held that

section 42.072(a) is facially unconstitutional for vagueness and overbreadth to the extent it

incorporates section 42.07(a)(7). Griswold v. State, 637 S.W.3d 888 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2021,

pet. filed). The court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court to grant the motion to

quash and dismiss the indictment.

The State filed a petition for discretionary review arguing that the Court of Appeals

erred in finding the stalking statute unconstitutional and in reversing the conviction. We

handed down opinions in Ex parte Barton, No. PD-1123-19, 2022 WL 1021061 (Tex. Crim.

App. Apr. 6, 2022), and Ex parte Sanders, No. PD-0469-19, 2022 WL 1021055 (Tex. Crim.

App. Apr. 6, 2022), in which we upheld the facial constitutionality of a previous version of

section 42.07(a)(7). See Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1222 (S.B. 139), § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

The indictment in this case alleged conduct that occurred on or about January 1, 2007

through April 24, 2018. Therefore, at least a portion of Appellant's case involves a challenge

to the version of section 42.07 that became effective after being amended by the legislature

in 2017. See Acts 2017, 85th Leg., ch. 522 (S.B. 179), §§ 13, 14, eff. Sept. 1, 2017.

The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our decisions in

Ex parte Barton and Ex parte Sanders. Accordingly, we grant the State’s petition for

discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to
Griswold - 3

the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Ex parte Barton and Ex parte

Sanders, and to address Appellant's remaining issues if necessary.

DELIVERED November 2, 2022

PUBLISH
Exhibit 12.01 RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERENCE DIVIDENDS  The following table reflects the computation of the ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preference dividends for the periods presented (in thousands):  Year ended September 30,Nine MonthsEnded June30,200720082009201020112012Earnings:Loss from operations before income taxes$        (22,423)$        (44,344)$        (42,933)$        (38,394)$        (10,551)$        (14,876)Add:Interest portion of rental expense (1)64126195206209161Total Earnings$        (22,359)$        (44,218)$        (42,738)$        (38,188)$        (10,342)$        (14,715)Fixed Charges and Preference Dividends:Interest portion of rental expense (1)$                  64$                126$                195$                206$                209$                161Preference dividend------Total fixed charges$                  64$                126$                195$                206$                209$                161Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preference dividends------Coverage deficiency (2)$        (22,423)$        (44,344)$        (42,933)$        (38,394)$        (10,551)$        (14,876)(1)  Computation of Interest Factor of Rental Expense:Operating rental expense$               194$                383$                591$                624$                633$                489Interest factor (*)33%33%33%33%33%33%Total$                  64$                126$                195$                206$                209$                161  (*)Calculated as 33% of rent expense, which is a reasonable approximation of the interest
factor.
   (2)In each of the years presented, we incurred losses from operations and as a result
our earnings were insufficient to cover our fixed charges.  The amount shown represents the amount of the coverage deficiency
in each such period.
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 Annual Report of The Navigators Group, Inc. (the

Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with

the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,

Stanley A. Galanski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley

Act of 2002, that:  (1)The Report fully complies with the

requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

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/ Stanley A. GalanskiStanley A. GalanskiPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 11, 2004  A signed original of this

written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Navigators

Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Navigators Group, Inc. and furnished to

the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
RECEIVED 

MAY 1 7 2010 

Permits Office Air·3 

U.S. EPA. Region 9 

May 13,2010 

sierra 

research 

1801 J Street 

Mr. Gerardo Rios Sacramento, CA 95811 

Chief, Permits Office 

USEPA Region 9 

Tel: (916) 444-6666 

Fax: (916) 444-8373 

Ann Arbor, MI 

75 Hawthorne Street Tel: (734) 761-6666 

San Francisco, CA 94105 Fax: (734) 761-6755 

Dear Mr. Rios: 

On behalfofAvenal Power Center, LLC: Sierra Research is submitting the enclosed 

digital modeling files which were produced in the analysis to demonstrate compliance 

with the I-hour N02 National Ambient Air Quality Standard. 

Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions. 

Very truly yours, 

Eric Walther 

cc:Jim Rexroad, Avenal Power Center, LLC 

JeffHol.mstead, Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP
Exhibit
32.1











CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






I,
Jake Wei, Chief Executive Officer of Greater China Media and Entertainment
Corp., certify  pursuant  to
18 U.S.C.  Section  1350 as enacted by
Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





(1)
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December
31, 2007 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Greater China
Media and Entertainment Corp.









Greater China Media and Entertainment Corp.Date:
      February 19, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Jake
      WeiName Jake WeiTitle Chief Executive Officer


A
signed  original of this
written  statement  required by Section 906, or other document
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 Greater China Media and Entertainment Corp.
and will
be  retained  by  Greater China Media and
Entertainment Corp.  and  furnished  to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In re NEW YORK & BROOKLYN BRIDGE (two cases).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 12, 1906.)

In the matter of the New York & Brooklyn Bridge. L. L. Delafield, for appellant. T. Connoly, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
exv10w12



 






Exhibit 10.12




Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan — Executive Officer Participation



The following is a list of the executive officers who participate in the Supplemental Executive
Retirement Plan and the applicable benefits schedule identified in the retirement plan for each
executive officer.




	 	 	 
	Executive Officer	 	Benefits Schedule

	 	 	 
	Randolph D. Lerner

	 	Corporate Policy Committee
	Bruce L. Hammonds

	 	Corporate Policy Committee
	John R. Cochran, III

	 	Corporate Policy Committee
	Gregg Bacchieri

	 	SERP I
	Randall J. Black

	 	SERP II
	Douglas R. Denton

	 	SERP I
	Louis J. Freeh

	 	SERP I
	Charles C. Krulak

	 	SERP I
	John W. Scheflen

	 	SERP I
	Richard K. Struthers

	 	Corporate Policy Committee
	Kenneth A. Vecchione

	 	SERP I
	Lance L. Weaver

	 	Corporate Policy Committee
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE 

COMPANY, LLC, ERIC WANNER, AND 

JAMES L. SMITH,

Petitioners

v.

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

LUZERNE COUNTY HONORABLE 

JUDGE WILLIAM AMESBURY, 

PRESIDING, AND G.A. WEST & 

COMPANY, INC.,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 49 MM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of May, 2019, the Petition for Review Including Petition 

for Writs of Prohibition and Mandamus and Request for Emergency Stay, Application for 

Leave to File Original Process, and Application for Emergency Stay are DENIED.
#### Lane’s Will.

Order.

The will was mitted torreeordinthecoun*107ty court; and,afiterwards (without fault of the ex’or or clerk) was lost. Up-en the trial of a writ of error brought to reverse the order establishing the will, a sworn copy being produced,this court' dispensed with the production of the original, received proof of its due execution, and affirmed the decision of the coun, ty couit.-

*106[Mr. Draffin for Plaintiff: Mr.Richardson Mr. Crittenden for Defendants, J

From the Anderson Countt *Court.*

*April*19.

Judge Underwood

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

A paper purporting to be the last will and testament of Edward Lane, deceased, was proved and admitted to record in the county court clerk’s office of Anderson.

*107Watts fee. prosecute a writ of error with a view to-set aside the order of the county court, establishing the will, and directing it to be recorded.

The original will is lost. The executors therein named, and the clerk of the court in whose office the law directs the original to be kept, state on oath, that they know not what has become of it. The only question worthy of consideration, under such circumstances, is, whether this court, on the production of a sworn copy, and in the absence of the original, should receive proof of the due execution of the original, and affirm the order of the county court.

We cannot hesitate to dispense with the production of the original will, and to receive proof of its due execution. The law does not require impossibilities. Accidents ought not to destroy the rights of parties. It does not appear to be the fault of the executors, or of the clerk, that the original is not produced, and as its execution, in conformity to the requirements of the statute, has been duly proved, the order of the county court must be affirmed, with costs.
#### In re Application of Thomas J. Courtney for a Permanent License to Practice as an Attorney

*John J. Hunt,*for the applicant.

*Frederick L. Comley,*for the State Bar Examining Committee.

Argued October 5

decided October 5, 1971

The motion of Thomas J. Courtney to dismiss the appeal of the State Bar Examining Committee, dated August 20, 1971, is granted for the reason that the order appealed from is not a final judgment.

The motion by the State Bar Examining Committee for review from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is denied in the absence of a finding. See Practice Book § 694, as amended.
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

*Correction:*                     This notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 14, 2010, Volume 75, Number 177, page 55803. The location of the meeting has been changed to the following:                

*Place:*                     12 Executive Park Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30333.                

*Contact Person for More Information:*                     Gregory Anderson, M.S., M.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E60, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: (404) 498-2293.                

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                

      ( print page 69687)    
Dated: November 4, 2010.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2010-28597 Filed 11-12-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
§ 1734.2 Policy. ( a ) The transmission of information is vital to the economic development, education, and health of rural Americans. To further this objective, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) will provide financial assistance to distance learning and telemedicine projects that will improve the access for people residing in rural areas to educational, learning, training, and health care services.
( b ) In providing financial assistance, RUS will give priority to rural areas that it believes have the greatest need for distance learning and telemedicine services. RUS believes that generally the need is greatest in areas that are economically challenged, costly to serve, and experiencing outward migration. This program is consistent with the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that designate telecommunications service discounts for schools, libraries, and rural health care centers. RUS will take into consideration the community's involvement in the proposed project and the applicant's ability to leverage grant funds.
( c ) In administering this subpart, RUS will not favor or mandate the use of one particular technology over another.
( d ) Rural institutions are encouraged to cooperate with each other, with applicants, and with end-users to promote the program being implemented under this subpart.
( e ) RUS staff will make diligent efforts to inform potential applicants in rural areas of the programs being implemented under this subpart.
( f ) The Administrator may provide loans under this subpart to an entity that has received a telecommunications or electric loan under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. A borrower receiving a loan shall: ( 1 ) Make the funds provided available to entities that qualify as distance learning or telemedicine projects satisfying the requirements of this subpart, under any terms it so chooses as long as the terms are no more stringent than the terms under which it received the financial assistance.
( 2 ) Use the loan to acquire, install, improve, or extend a distance learning or telemedicine system referred to in this subpart.
( g ) The Administrator will allocate funds that are appropriated each fiscal year for subparts B, C, and D, of this part respectively. Not more than 30 days before the end of the fiscal year, the Administrator may transfer any funds not committed to grants in the combination loan and grant program to the grant program.
( h ) Financial assistance may be provided for end user sites. Financial assistance may also be provided for hubs located in rural or non-rural areas if they are necessary to provide distance learning or telemedicine services to rural residents at end user sites.
( i ) The Administrator will publish, at the end of each fiscal year, a notice on the RUS Telecommunications Program Web site of all applications receiving financial assistance under this subpart. Subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), applications will be available for public inspection at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250.