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

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 56 (Friday, March 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 17663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06558]

[[Page 17663]]

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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

[Public Notice 2013-1111]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Submission for OMB Review and Comments Request.

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

    Form Title: EIB 92-32 Notification by Insured of Amounts Payable 
Under Single-Buyer Export Credit Insurance Policy.
SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to 
comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    This form represents the exporter's directive to Ex-Im Bank to whom 
and where the insurance proceeds should be sent. The forms are 
typically part of the documentation required by financial institution 
lenders in order to provide financing of an exporter's foreign accounts 
receivable. Foreign accounts receivable insured by Ex-Im Bank represent 
stronger collateral to secure the financing. By recording which 
policyholders have completed this form, Ex-Im Bank is able to determine 
how many of its exporter policyholders require Ex-Im Bank insurance 
policies to support lender financing.
    The application can be reviewed at: www.exim.gov/pub/pending/eib92-32.pdf.
    Single Buyer Export Credit Insurance Policy.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before April 22, 2013 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES:  Comments maybe submitted electronically on 
www.regulations.gov or by mail to Office of Management and Budget, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 725 17th Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20038 attn: OMB-3048-XXXX (EIB 92-32).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Titles and Form Number: EIB 92-32 Single Buyer Export Credit 
Insurance Policy.
    OMB Number: 3048-XXXX.
    Type of Review: New.
    Need and Use: The information requested enables the applicant to 
provide Ex-Im Bank with the information necessary to obtain 
legislatively required assurance of repayment and fulfills other 
statutory requirements.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 150.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 minutes.
    Frequency of Reporting or Use: Annually.
    Government Review Time: 1 hour.
    Total Hours: 150 hours.
    Cost to the Government: $16,320.

Sharon A. Whitt,
Agency Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-06558 Filed 3-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
Motion Granted; Order filed May 14, 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00735

- CR

____________ JERALD MARQUISE MURR AY SENIOR , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 239th District Court Brazoria Co unty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 82258

- CR



### ORDER
Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appellant filed a motion requesting to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). The motion is granted.Accordingly, we hereby direct the Judge of the 239th District Court to afford

appellant an opportunity to view the trial record i n accordance with local procedure; that the clerk of that court furnish the record to appellant on or before May 29, 2019 ; that the clerk of that court certify to this court the date on which delivery of the record to appellant is made; and that appellant file his pro se brief with this court within thirty days of that date.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Hassan
#### § 102.171 Cost shifting.

Costs incurred by the Agency in connection with referral of debts for tax refund offset will be added to the debt and thus increase the amount of the offset. Such costs may include administrative costs and attorneys fees.
#### § 99.12 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              44
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          19,884
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        159,089
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,855
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 177,970
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                471
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         14
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     177,485
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 177,970
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,873
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   190
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,063
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,063
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,958
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,958
<EPS-BASIC>                                  45,910.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                45,910.00
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   13.23
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,800
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,516
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,855
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,855
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### GLENN v. THE STATE. (Two Cases)

(Decided May 13, 1915.)

Appeal from Montgomery City Court.

Heard before Hon. Armstead Brown.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Per Curiam.

Appeal withdrawn.'
Exhibit 24.6


                               KEYSPAN CORPORATION

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY



     WHEREAS,  KeySpan  Corporation,  a New York  corporation  (the  "Company"),
intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an Annual Report on Form 10-K as prescribed by
said Commission  pursuant to said Act and the rules and regulations  promulgated
thereunder.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  in my capacity as a director of the Company,  I do hereby
appoint GERALD LUTERMAN, JOHN J. BISHAR, JR. and MICHAEL J. TAUNTON, and each of
them  severally,  as my  attorneys-in-fact  with power to execute in my name and
place, and in my capacity as a director of KeySpan Corporation, said Report, any
amendment  to said  Report  and  any  other  documents  required  in  connection
therewith, and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this power of attorney this 21st day of
February, 2007.


                                                       /s/Gloria C. Larson
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         234,473
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  462,522
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               696,995
<PP&E>                                         143,502
<DEPRECIATION>                                (52,900)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 994,520
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          582,185
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     412,335
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   994,520
<SALES>                                      1,404,901
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,404,901
<CGS>                                          795,334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  795,334
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,310,331
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (700,764)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (700,764)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (700,764)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.086
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.086



</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 : PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Tanya McCaffery, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Specialty Trust, Inc.2.
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:  a)
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):  a)
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting. /s/ Tanya M. McCaffery
    
    Dated this 29th day of March 2005Name:
    
    Tanya M. McCafferyTitle :
    
    Interim Chief Financial Officer
 99
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

FABIAN DESMOND SMART,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 245 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of September, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
#### § 1471.125 Does an exclusion under the nonprocurement system affect a person's eligibility for Federal procurement contracts?

If any Federal agency excludes a person under its nonprocurement common rule on or after August 25, 1995, the excluded person is also ineligible to participate in Federal procurement transactions under the FAR. Therefore, an exclusion under this part has reciprocal effect in Federal procurement transactions.
§ 1472.500 How are violations of this part determined for recipients other than individuals? A recipient other than an individual is in violation of the requirements of this part if the Agency Director determines, in writing, that— ( a ) The recipient has violated the requirements of subpart B of this part; or
( b ) The number of convictions of the recipient's employees for violating criminal drug statutes in the workplace is large enough to indicate that the recipient has failed to make a good faith effort to provide a drug-free workplace.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:? U.S. DOT/FAA - NPRM; recission
#### § 18.1104 Effective date.

These rules are effective thirty days after date of publication with respect to formal adversarial adjudications as specified in § 18.1101 except that with respect to hearings held following an investigation conducted by the United States Department of Labor, these rules shall be effective only where the investigation commenced thirty days after publication.
1 

### Tax, Wienke

From: Tong, Stanley Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 4:23 PM To: Tax, Wienke Subject: FW: SCAQMD RACT Analysis Draft 20141119 (2) Attachments: SCAQMD RACT Analysis Draft 20141119 (2).doc

Wienke,

The attached file is what I received from South Coa st (Joe Cassmassi) forwarding additional analysis t o supplement its 7/18/2014 submittal of the “2016 AQMP Reasonably Av ailable Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration”. P age 1 contains a discussion on Rule 1115 “Motor Vehicle A ssembly Line Coating Operations” and emissions from facilities subject to the rule.

Stan

___________________________________________________ __________________________ Stanley Tong US EPA Region IX Air Division - Rules Office (AIR 4) 75 Hawthorne St. San Francisco, CA 94105

tong.stanley@epa.gov 415 947 4122 (w) 415 947 3579 (f)

From: Joe Cassmassi [mailto:jcassmassi@aqmd.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 1:13 PM To: Tong, Stanley Subject: SCAQMD RACT Analysis Draft 20141119 (2)
# EUR-Lex - 31998R1498 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R1498

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1498/98 of 14 July 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables **

*
Official Journal L 198 , 15/07/1998 P. 0004 - 0004 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1498/98 of 14 July 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2520/97 (2) and in particular Article 32(2), thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2375/96 (4), lays down detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables;

Whereas setting an entry price requires that the rules for calculating the customs value as defined in Article 29(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), be applied in such a way as to ensure the consistency of the two methods of calculation; whereas this should also be specified in the text of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94, in particular to facilitate the preparation of the customs declarations;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fruit and Vegetables,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The following paragraph 1b is added to Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94:

'1b. Where the entry price is calculated on the basis of the price fob of the products in the country of origin, the customs value shall be calculated on the basis of the relevant sale at that price.

When the entry price is calculated in accordance with one of the procedures provided for in paragraph 1(b) or (c) or paragraph 1a(b), the customs value shall be calculated on the same basis as the entry price.`

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 July 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 297, 21. 11. 1996, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 346, 17. 12. 1997, p. 41.

(3) OJ L 337, 24. 12. 1994, p. 66.

(4) OJ L 325, 14. 12. 1996, p. 5.

(5) OJ L 302, 19. 10. 1992, p. 1.

(6) OJ L 17, 21. 1. 1997, p. 1.
#### White *et al. v.*Littlefield.

The awarding of costs on a proceeding in the probate court is a matter in the sound discretion of the court, according to the rule in a court of chancery.

IN ERROR from the probate court of the county of Ponola.

Hawkins for plaintiff in error.

Miller *contra.*

Opinion of the court by

Mr. Justice Turner.

. The defendant in error applied to the probate court at the October term, 1841, for letters of guardianship to the minor heirs of John H. White, deceased, and the court ordered notice of the application to be issued, requiring all persons interested to appear at the next term and show cause why such letters should not be granted. At the same October term the plaintiffs also applied for the guardianship; and the matter stood over, by continuances, at the instance of the plaintiffs, until the December term 1841, when the defendant withdrew his application, and the court appointed plaintiffs guardians of said minor heirs, and ordered that the defendant be taxed with the costs of his application for letters of guardianship, and the cost of his witnesses ; and further ordered that the plaintiffs be taxed with the costs of their own witnesses, from which order the plaintiffs prayed an appeal, in the nature of a writ of error; and the question raised for the consideration of this court is, whether the court below erred in ordering the plaintiffs to pay costs.

By the 8th sec. of the orphans’ court law, Revised Code, p. 29 jt is provided,- that in all cases of contest, the orphans’ court may award costs to the party, in their opinion, entitled thereto, and may compel payment, &c. In this particular, the rule is the same, as *407in chancery cases.' The awarding of costs in those courts is a matter in the sound discretion of the court. In the present case, we think it was properly exercised. Littlefield was the first applicant. It does not appear that he either sought or expected a controversy. It is said that he was the step-father of those children, and there is certainly nothing reprehensible in a step-father asking to be appointed guardian of his wife’s children. He may, it is true, have been an improper person for the trust; and of that matter the orphans’ court were the proper judges, and they have certainly decided right. Littlefield did not carry matters to extremes ; he retired from the contest, at the second or third term after his application.

Judgment affirmed.