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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4923 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to extend by one year certain 

port of entry donation authorities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2020 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. HEINRICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to extend 

by one year certain port of entry donation authorities, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Funding for Infra5 structure at Ports of Entry Extension Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PORT OF ENTRY 

7 DONATION AUTHORITIES. 

8 Section 482(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

9 (6 U.S.C. 301a(b)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4923 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (2), in the matter preceding 

2 subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘existing a’’ and in3 serting ‘‘existing’’; and 

4 (2) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ‘‘the date 

5 that is 4 years after December 16, 2016’’ and in6 serting ‘‘December 16, 2021’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10(z)(9)

                              CONSULTING AGREEMENT

      AGREEMENT made as of May 9, 1996 between LONG ISLAND LIGHTING  COMPANY,  a
New York corporation, having its principal offices at 175 East Old Country Road,
Hicksville,  New York 11801  (hereinafter the "Company") and LIONEL M. GOLDBERG,
residing in Glen Cove, New York (hereinafter the "Consultant");
     WHEREAS, the Company has requested that the Consultant perform services for
it; and
     WHEREAS,  the Consultant is willing to perform consulting  services for the
Company;

      NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed that:

      1. Effective May 9, 1996,  the Consultant  will be engaged as a Consulting
Director  for a  period  ending  on the  day  of  the  1997  Annual  Meeting  of
Shareowners.  The Consultant  will advise and counsel the Board of Directors and
any of its  committees on various  business and financial  matters and any other
areas requested by or on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Company.

      2. For such services, the Consultant will receive an annual retainer equal
to the annual retainer paid to a duly elected  Director,  an additional  $500.00
for each Board or  Committee  meeting  attended  and the same pension and health
benefits  provided to a duly elected director.  Consultant  acknowledges that he
will  participate in the Company's  Directors'  Stock Unit Retariner Plan, which
was effective  January 1, 1996, and that at least 50% of  Consultant's  retainer
will be applied to the purchase of stock units.

     3. The  Consultant  shall  have the right to  participate  as a  Consulting
Director in the  Company's  Deferred  Compensation  Plan for  Directors  and the
Company's Retirement Income Plan for Directors.
 
     4. This agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed this 17th day of May,
1996.


CONSULTANT                         LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY



/S/ LIONEL M. GOLDBERG                     /S/ KATHLEEN A. MARION
----------------------                     ----------------------
LIONEL M. GOLDBERG                            CORPORATE SECRETARY
Exhibit 18


May 22, 1998

Anthony Nozzolillo
Senior Vice President and Principal Financial Officer
Long Island Lighting Company
175 E Old Country Road
Hicksville, NY  11801

Dear Mr. Nozzolillo:

Note 1 of Notes to the  Financial  Statements  of Long Island  Lighting  Company
included  in its Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the year ended  March 31,  1998
describes a change in the method of accounting  for the annual  amortization  of
the Rate Moderation  Component (RMC) of a regulatory  asset from a straight line
method to a method  which is  computed  based upon  monthly  forecasted  revenue
requirements.  You have  advised  us that you  believe  that the  change is to a
preferable method in your circumstances  because the monthly amortization of the
RMC, which varies based upon each month's forecasted revenue requirements,  more
closely aligns such  amortization with the Company's cost of service producing a
better matching of revenue with the related expense for reporting  within a rate
year.

There are no  authoritative  criteria for  determining a "preferable"  method of
accounting for the annual  amortization of the RMC, however we conclude that the
change in the method of accounting for the annual  amortization of the RMC is to
an acceptable  alternative method which, based on your business judgment to make
this change for the reason cited above, is preferable in your circumstances.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
---------------------
###### Editorial Note on Part 20

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

#### § 20.208 Certification by employer.

Along with the withholding order, the agency shall send to the employer a certification in the form prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The employer shall complete and return the certification to the Department within the time frame prescribed in the instructions to the form. The certification will address matters such as information about the debtor's employment status and disposable pay available for withholding.
§ 4062.5 Net worth record date. ( a ) *General.* Unless the PBGC establishes an earlier net worth record date pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, the net worth record date, for all purposes under this part, is the plan's termination date.
( b ) *Establishment of an earlier net worth record date.* At any time during a termination proceeding, the PBGC, in order to prevent undue loss to or abuse of the plan termination insurance system, may establish as the net worth record date an earlier date during the 120-day period ending with the termination date.
( c ) *Notification.* Whenever the PBGC establishes an earlier net worth record date, it shall immediately give liable person(s) written notification of that fact. The written notice may also include a request for additional information, as provided in § 4062.6(a)(3).
§ 4233.5 Plan information. An application for partition must include the following information with respect to the plan: ( a ) The name of the plan, Employer Identification Number (EIN), and three-digit Plan Number (PN).
( b ) The name, address, and telephone number of the plan sponsor and the plan sponsor's duly authorized representative, if any.
( c ) The most recent trust agreement, including all amendments adopted since the last restatement.
( d ) The most recent plan document, including all amendments adopted since the last restatement.
( e ) The most recent summary plan description (SPD), and all summaries of material modification (SMM) issued since the effective date of the most recent SPD.
( f ) The most recent rehabilitation plan (or funding improvement plan, if applicable), including all subsequent amendments and updates, and the percentage of total contributions received under each schedule of the rehabilitation plan for the most recent plan year available.
( g ) A copy of the plan's most recent IRS determination letter.
( h ) A copy of the plan's most recent Form 5500 (Annual Report Form) and all schedules and attachments (including the audited financial statement).
( i ) A current listing of employers who have an obligation to contribute to the plan, and the approximate number of participants for whom each employer is currently making contributions.
( j ) A schedule of withdrawal liability payments collected in each of the most recent five plan years.
§ 503.6 Waiver of rights prohibited. A person may not seek to have an H-2B worker, a worker in corresponding employment, or any other person, including but not limited to a U.S. worker improperly rejected for employment or improperly laid off or displaced, waive or modify any rights conferred under 8 U.S.C. 1184(c), INA section 214(c), 20 CFR part 655, subpart A, or the regulations in this part. Any agreement by an employee purporting to waive or modify any rights given to said person under these provisions will be void as contrary to public policy except as follows: ( a ) Waivers or modifications of rights or obligations hereunder in favor of the Secretary will be valid for purposes of enforcement; and
( b ) Agreements in settlement of private litigation are permitted.
1 

### Medina, Dayana

From: Pettyjohn, Mary <PETTYJOHN@adeq.state.ar.us>

Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:05 AM

To: Galler, Wayne J.

Subject: FW: Region 6 feedback on Georgia Pacific- 6A and 9A boilers

Hi Wayne,

Nice talking with you today.

This is the response from EPA on the 6A boiler. To be BART

‐ eligible a unit has to be in operation between 07 Aug 1962

and 07 Aug 1977. If you can locate documentation showing the 6A boiler was in operation prior to 07 Aug 1962, then

this unit would not be BART

‐ eligible.

Another email will follow.

Have a great day,

Mary

From: Medina, Dayana [mailto:Medina.Dayana@epa.gov]

Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 3:46 PM

To: Pettyjohn, Mary

Cc: Feldman, Michael; Donaldson, Guy

Subject: Region 6 feedback on Georgia Pacific- 6A and 9A boilers

Hi Mary,

One of the action items from our call with you last Thursday was for Region 6 to send an email with feedback concerning

the 6A and 9A boilers at the Georgia

‐ Pacific Crossett Mill.

In our action on the Arkansas RH SIP, we disapproved the finding that the 6A Boiler at the Georgia

‐ Pacific Crossett Mill

was not BART

‐ eligible. Assuming no new information surfaces regarding boiler 6A, then we continue to believe that the

6A and 9A boilers are BART

‐ eligible and visibility modeling should be performed to determine whether the combined

visibility impacts from the BART

‐ eligible units at the facility are greater than the 0.5 dv threshold, therefore making the

units subject

‐ to

‐ BART. As we previously discussed, we believe the best approach is for Georgia Pacific to use data on

production rates, fuel usage, heat capacity, etc., to provide some kind of technical support that would demonstrate that

the maximum 24

‐ hr emissions during the 2001

‐ 2003 baseline period from the 9A boiler are less than or equal to the new

permit limit used in the modeling. We do not believe that relying on the maximum permit allowable without

documentation of the baseline period emissions is a good option. Maximum 24

‐ hr emissions from the baseline period

from the 6A boiler should be estimated based on available data and also included in the modeling. Should revised

modeling demonstrate that the visibility impacts from the source fall below the 0.5 dv threshold at all impacted Class I

areas, this would support a determination that the source (6A and 9A boilers) was never subject to BART and no five

factor BART analysis is necessary.

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this issue.

Thank you,

Dayana Medina

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division2 Air Planning Section (6PD

‐ L)

214

‐ 665

‐ 7241

medina.dayana@epa.gov
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Women Workers in Some Expanding Wartime Industries: New Jersey, 1942

              																	United States. Women's Bureau. 						*Women Workers in Some Expanding Wartime Industries: New Jersey, 1942 : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 197*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1943,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5470,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Exhibit 23





                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Lilly Industries,  Inc. of our report dated January 13, 1997, included in the
1996 Annual Report to Shareholders of Lilly Industries, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial  statement  schedule of Lilly Industries,
Inc. listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the  responsibility of the Company's
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,  presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We further consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration  Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 2-59159, 2-76317,  33-52959,  33-52956 and 33-52958 pertaining to
the Lilly  Employees'  Stock  Purchase Plan,  the Lilly  Industries,  Inc. Stock
Option Plan,  the Lilly  Industries,  Inc. 1991 Director  Stock Option Plan, the
Lilly  Industries,  Inc.  Employee 401(k) Savings Plan and the Lilly Industries,
Inc. 1992 Stock Option Plan, respectively) of our report dated January 13, 1997,
with respect to the consolidated  financial  statements  incorporated  herein by
reference,  and our report  included in the preceding  paragraph with respect to
the financial  statement  schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
Lilly Industries, Inc.


February 27, 1997


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Peter-Mark Vogel, hereby certifies, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (a) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Manas Petroleum
      Corporation for the period ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the
      requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
| | (b) | information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Manas Petroleum Corporation.                                                  

Date: May 13, 2011

/s/ Peter-Mark VogelPeter-Mark VogelChief
Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)

---
<PAGE>

LOSS PER SHARE

Computation of loss per share
(in thousands, except per share data)

                                                   Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                       1998           1999
                                                  ------------  -------------

Net loss                                          $    (8,516)  $    (17,560)
                                                  ============  =============
Net loss attributable to common stockholders      $    (8,516)  $    (41,172)
                                                  ============  =============
Weighted average shares of common stock
outstanding used in computing basic and
diluted net loss per share outstanding                  1,934          5,483
                                                  ============  =============

Basic and diluted net loss per share
attributable to common shareholders               $     (4.40)  $      (7.51)
                                                  ============  =============

Shares of common stock used in computing
pro forma basic and diluted net loss per shar                         18,295
                                                                =============

Pro forma basic and diluted net loss per share                       $ (2.25)
                                                                =============
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 18

- 50939 Conference Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus

Salvador Chavez, Jr., also known as Salvador Chavez,

Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:18

- CR

- 132

- 1

Before Jones, Clement, and Haynes, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *

The attorney appointed to represent Salvador Chavez, Jr., has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Chavez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 5, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-50939 Document: 00515694857 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2021No. 18

- 50939

2 brief and the re levant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
GRANTED , counsel is excused from further resp onsibilities herein, and
the APPEAL IS DISMISSED

. See 5th Cir. R. 42 .2

. Case: 18-50939 Document: 00515694857 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BOYD'S
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF, AND FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED, SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           8,656
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,160
<ALLOWANCES>                                       180
<INVENTORY>                                     12,991
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,409
<PP&E>                                           4,318
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,487
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 295,537
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,606
<BONDS>                                        256,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      (48,675)
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,606
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   295,537
<SALES>                                        160,177
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               160,177
<CGS>                                           53,872
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,434
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,441
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 75,430
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,155
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             48,275
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  6,946
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    41,329
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.81


</TABLE>
#### Lawrence *vs.*Willoughby.

In pleading a Judgment Record, a variance between the declaration and the Record as set forth therein, in the amount declared on, or names of parties, will be fatal.

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OP RAMSEY COUNTY.

This was an action of debt, founded on a Judgment obtained in a court in Illinois. The canse was tried by consent of parties by the Court without a jury.

A Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff.

Pterse *&*Murray, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.

Ames *&*Nelson, for the Defendant.

Cooper, J.

This is an action of debt, founded on a judgment for $400, damages and costs of suit; obtained by W. B. Lawrence, the defendant in error here, in the County Court of Jo Davis County, in the State of Illinois, against Amherst Willoughby the plaintiff in error, and one N. W. Finn.

The errors complained of, and assigned for correction in this Court, arc:

*First.*That there is a variance between the declaration and the transcript of the judgment declared upon, in stating the amount of said judgment and costs.

*Second.*There is a variance between the declaration and the transcript of the Judgment Record, declared on in stating the parties to said judgment.

The judgment obtained in the Court of Illinois, was for $400 damages and the costs of suit. The declaration was, that it wag for $400 damages and costs of suit, which costs amount to$150. The Record shows this averment to be incorrect, and the variance is fatal.

Again, the declaration alleged that the judgment was obtained against Amlierst Willoughby and one Finn. This variance is also fatal.

*88In averring matters of record, great particularity should always he observed. Any misstatement in the description of a record in pleading is, as a general rule, fatal to such pleading. The reason of this is too obvious to admit of a doubt of its propriety. Did a different rule obtain, the evils growing out of it would be incalculable, and the objects of pleading defeated entirely. The defendant is entitled to notice of the cause of action upon which he is sued. To afford him such notice, and properly apprise him of the matters against which he is called upon to defend, is one of the main objects of pleading.

The averments, therefore, in a declaration, and the proof of the matters averred, must be identical. The allegations and. proof must correspond. Here it cannot be pretended that such was the case. The judgment declared upon, and the transcript offered in evidence, and received to sustain the allegations in 'the declaration, were different both in the amount of the judgment and the parties to it. A more palpable case could not be supposed, neither amount nor parties being the same ; who could say it was the identical judgment declared upon ? It might just as well have named any other party, and the variance would not be greater. The declaration and proof, therefore, not corresponding, it was had, and being so, the judgment must be reversed with costs.