alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34446-34447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13407]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Renewal of the Board of Visitors for the Department of Defense 
Regional Security Centers

ACTION:  Notice.

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

[[Page 34447]]

SUMMARY: The Board of Visitors for the Department of Defense Regional 
Security Centers was renewed, effective May 1, 2000, in consonance with 
the public interest, and in accordance with the provisions of Pub. L. 
92-463, the ``Federal Advisory Committee Act.''
    The Board of Visitors, comprised of a balanced membership of 
leading experts in the field of national security, is essential in 
providing advice and counsel to the Secretary of Defense, other senior 
Pentagon officials, and sound management of the DoD Regional Security 
Centers. The Board members are chosen for their experience and 
knowledge of national security affairs, academics, and regional 
political-military issues. They advise senior DoD officials on matters 
relating to mission, policy, course content, faculty, and 
administration of the Centers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Berry, Director, Regional Affairs 
(703) 695-6386.

    Dated: May 23, 2000.
Linda M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-13407 Filed 5-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 460 

To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of 

National Association of Manufacturers v. Taylor, et al. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2008 

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel 

in the case of National Association of Manufacturers 

v. Taylor, et al. 

Whereas, in the case of National Association of Manufacturers v. Taylor, et al., Case No. 08–CV–208–CKK 

(D.D.C.), pending in the United States District Court for 

the District of Columbia, the plaintiff is asserting that 

the reporting requirements of section 4(b)(3) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1603(b)(3), as 

amended by section 207 of the Honest Leadership and 

Open Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110–81, 121 

Stat. 735, 747, are unconstitutional; 

Whereas, the plaintiff has named the Secretary of the Senate, 

Nancy Erickson, as a defendant in her capacity as the ofVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:39 Feb 26, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR460.ATS SR460

smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

SRES 460 ATS 

ficer of the Senate responsible for the receipt of lobbying 

disclosure registrations and reports; 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. 288b(a) and 

288c(a)(1), the Senate may direct its counsel to defend 

officers of the Senate in civil actions relating to their official responsibilities: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is author2 ized to represent the Secretary of the Senate in the case 

3 of National Association of Manufacturers v. Taylor, et al. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      47,191,000
<SECURITIES>                                25,230,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,569,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,029,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            80,203,000
<PP&E>                                      32,892,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,758,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             400,494,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       55,331,000
<BONDS>                                      8,070,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 318,484,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               400,494,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            50,015,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              107,237,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (112,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,029,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             381,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (55,053,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,537,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (48,516,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (48,516,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (2.89)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.89)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-61091, 33-42211,333-42338 and 333-124763 on Form S-8 and 333-115662 on Form S-3 of The Lubrizol Corporation of ourreports dated February 28, 2006, relating to the financial statements and financial statementschedule of The Lubrizol Corporation and management’s report on the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, appearing in and incorporated by reference in this Annual Reporton Form 10-K of The Lubrizol Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2005./s/ Deloitte & Touche LLPCleveland, Ohio
```

[115th Congress Public Law 187]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Public Law 115-187
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the 
     amount of leverage made available to small business investment 
           companies. <<NOTE: June 21, 2018 -  [H.R. 2333]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Small Business 
Investment Opportunity Act of 2017.>> 
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 15 USC 661 note.>>  SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Investment Opportunity 
Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. INDIVIDUAL SBIC LEVERAGE LIMIT INCREASE.

    Section 303(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Small Business Investment Act of 
1958 (15 U.S.C. 683(b)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking 
``$150,000,000'' and inserting ``$175,000,000''.

    Approved June 21, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2333:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115-215 (Comm. on Small Business).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 163 (2017):
                                    July 24, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 164 (2018):
                                    June 5, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### § 110.126 Monterey Harbor, Calif.

The waters of Monterey Harbor between the shoreline and the following coordinates: Beginning at a point on the shoreline at latitude 36°36′27.5′′ N., longitude 121°53′35.0′′ W.; thence to latitude 36°36′32.4′′ N., longitude 121°53′31.0′′ W., in an easterly direction to latitude 36°36′28.8′′ N., 121°53′19.0′′ W.; thence south to latitude 36°36′23.1′′ N., longitude 121°53′19.0′′ W.; thence to the north end of Municipal Wharf No. 1 at latitude 36°36′20.0′′ N., longitude 121°53′28.0′′ W.

[CGD 82-091, 47 FR 45878, Oct. 14, 1982]
Hillsborough

No. 7193

#### Mary R. Ducey v. Ruth Corey

March 31, 1976

*Shaw & Robertson*and *Norman C. Gile (Mr. Gile*orally) for the plaintiff.

*Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn & Kohls*and *Eugene M. Van Loan III (Mr. Van Loan*orally) for the defendant.

*164Per curiam.

The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in not enforcing an out-of-court settlement between attorneys. We hold that it did not.

Plaintiff, a resident of Massachusetts, was injured in an automobile accident in New Hampshire on July 17, 1969. She consulted a lawyer in Massachusetts and was referred to a New Hampshire attorney (not her present attorney) who brought suit by writ dated April 30, 1971. Present counsel for the defendant through her insurer entered an appearance on her behalf. A deposition of the plaintiff was taken in January 1972 and a pretrial hearing was held in April 1972. Negotiations for settlement were conducted by plaintiff’s then counsel and counsel for the defendant from the period January 1972 until January 1973 when counsel agreed to settle for $300 and plaintiff’s counsel agreed to obtain releases. The case had been set to be tried beginning February 1, 1973, and defendant’s counsel notified the clerk of court that the case had been settled. The clerk notified counsel for both parties pursuant to Superior Court Rule 48 that the court had been notified of the settlement and that agreements should be filed in court. RSA 491: App. R. 48 (Supp. 1975). Thereafter in March plaintiff’s then counsel notified defendant’s counsel that plaintiff refused to sign or accept the settlement.

Defendant then filed a motion to enforce the settlement. At the hearing on the motion, plaintiff testified without contradiction that she never authorized the lawyer to settle her claim, never heard a specific figure but was only told that the case was coming up, they had only offered a few hundred dollars and that he the lawyer would “get back” to her, that she had to go to Florida for her health and assumed the lawyer would tell her “what was going on, which he didn’t” and when she returned home, she found the releases.

The trial court found that plaintiff’s former attorney did not have express or implied authority to make the settlement and that the settlement was not completed and denied the motion to enforce the settlement. Defendant’s exceptions were transferred by *Keller,*C.J.

Our rule regarding the power of an attorney to bind his client by settlement is, perhaps, the most liberal in the country. *See Burtman v. Butman,*94 N.H. 412, 54 A.2d 367 (1947); Annot., 66 A.L.R. 107 (1930); Annot., 30 A.L.R.2d 944 (1953). However, in this case, there was a basis for the trial court’s finding that there was no express or implied authority for the settlement. The motion to enforce the settlement sought a remedy in the nature of specific *165performance which is governed by equitable principles. *Burtman v. Butman supra.*Although we reaffirm our existing law, we cannot say that on the facts of this case the denial of the motion was unwarranted. *See Harrison v. Gooden,*439 F.2d 1070 (1st Cir. 1971).

*Exception overruled; remanded.*
EXHIBIT 99.2
                                                                    ------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            -------------------------
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                  ---------------------------------------------

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Troy Financial Corporation (the
"Company"), hereby certifies that to his knowledge on the date hereof:

(a)    the Form 10-Q of the Company for the three month and six month periods
       ended March 31, 2003 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and
       Exchange Commission (the "Report") 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
       respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the
       Company.

                           /s/ David J. DeLuca
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               David J. DeLuca
                               Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                               May 14, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Troy Financial Corporation and will be retained by Troy Financial
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.


                                       30
§ 541.200 General rule for administrative employees. ( a ) The term “employee employed in a bona fide administrative capacity” in section 13(a)(1) of the Act shall mean any employee: ( 1 ) Compensated on a salary or fee basis at not less than the level set forth in § 541.600;
( 2 ) Whose primary duty is the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer's customers; and
( 3 ) Whose primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.
( b ) The term “salary basis” is defined at § 541.602; “fee basis” is defined at § 541.605; “board, lodging or other facilities” is defined at § 541.606; and “primary duty” is defined at § 541.700.
[69 FR 22260, Apr. 23, 2004, as amended at 81 FR 32549, May 23, 2016; 84 FR 51306, Sept. 27, 2019; 89 FR 32971, Apr. 26, 2024]
§ 97.12 Special grant or subgrant conditions for “high-risk” grantees. ( a ) A grantee or subgrantee may be considered “high risk” if an awarding agency determines that a grantee or subgrantee: ( 1 ) Has a history of unsatisfactory performance, or
( 2 ) Is not financially stable, or
( 3 ) Has a management system which does not meet the management standards set forth in this part, or
( 4 ) Has not conformed to terms and conditions of previous awards, or
( 5 ) Is otherwise not responsible; and if the awarding agency determines that an award will be made, special conditions and/or restrictions shall correspond to the high risk condition and shall be included in the award.
( b ) Special conditions or restrictions may include: ( 1 ) Payment on a reimbursement basis;
( 2 ) Withholding authority to proceed to the next phase until receipt of evidence of acceptable performance within a given funding period;
( 3 ) Requiring additional, more detailed financial reports;
( 4 ) Additional project monitoring;
( 5 ) Requiring the grantee or subgrantee to obtain technical or management assistance; or
( 6 ) Establishing additional prior approvals.
( c ) If an awarding agency decides to impose such conditions, the awarding official will notify the grantee or subgrantee as early as possible, in writing, of: ( 1 ) The nature of the special conditions/restrictions;
( 2 ) The reason(s) for imposing them;
( 3 ) The corrective actions which must be taken before they will be removed and the time allowed for completing the corrective actions and
( 4 ) The method of requesting reconsideration of the conditions/restrictions imposed.
#### VERNON J. LEFTRIDGE *v.*ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT, ET AL.

(AC 19149)

O’Connell, C. J., and Spear and Mihalakos, Js.

Submitted on briefs November 3

officially released November 30, 1999

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### § 125.08 Great Lakes.

The term *Great Lakes* as used in the regulations in this subchapter shall include the Great Lakes and their connecting and tributary waters.

[CGFR 57-52, 22 FR 10301, Dec. 20, 1957]
#### § 780.716 Exemption of employees “employed * * * by” the establishment.

If the establishment is a country elevator establishment qualified for exemption as previously explained, and if the “area of production” requirement is met (see § 780.720), any employee “employed * * * by” such establishment will come within the section 13(b)(14) exemption. This will bring within the exemption employees who are engaged in duties performed away from the establishment as well as those whose duties are performed in the establishment itself, so long as such employees are “employed * * * by” the country elevator establishment within the meaning of the Act. The employees employed “by” the establishment, who may come within the exemption if the other requirements are met, are not necessarily identical with the employees employed “in the establishment in such operations” who must be counted for purposes of the five-employee limitation since some of the latter employees may be employed by another employer. (See §§ 780.712 through 780.715.)
**EXHIBIT32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

# **Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code)**

** **

Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), theundersigned officer of Alexander’s, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended March 31, 2011**(the “Report”) of the Company fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

** **

|        |   |   |
|-------------|--------|--------|
| May 2, 2011 |   |   | /s/ Steven Roth |
|        |   | Name:  | Steven Roth |
|        |   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer |
|        |   |   |   |   |

 

 

 

----
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [LLIDT000000.L11200000.DD0000.241A.00]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of Public Meetings.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004 (FLREA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.

# DATES:

September 15, 2011. On September 15, 2011, the Twin Falls District RAC members will meet at the Burley BLM Fire Conference Room, located at 3630 Overland Ave., Burley, Idaho 83318. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end no later than 5 p.m. The public comment period for the RAC meeting will take place 2-2:30 p.m.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Heather Tiel-Nelson, Twin Falls District, Idaho, 2536 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, Idaho 83301, (208) 736-2352.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 15-member RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Idaho. During the morning of the September 15th meeting, RAC members will tour different fuel break projects within the Burley Field Office. That afternoon, the RAC will return to the Burley Fire Conference room to discuss Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River and Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve Travel Management Plans. Additional topics may be added and will be included in local media announcements.

                    More information is available at                     *http://www.blm.gov/​id/​st/​en/​res/​resource_​advisory.3.html*.                

RAC meetings are open to the public. For further information about the meeting, please contact Heather Tiel-Nelson, Public Affairs Specialist for the Twin Falls District, BLM at (208) 736-2352.

      ( print page 51054)    
Dated: August 5, 2011.

Bill Baker,

District Manager.

[FR Doc. 2011-20929 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
AIDD Protection and Advocacy (PAs) Awards for the States/Territories

FY 2014 Annual Allocation

3/18/2014

State/Territory

AIDD Protection 

and Advocacy 

(P&As)

Alabama $619,708

Alaska $362,881

Arizona $659,935

Arkansas $382,159

California $3,297,166

Colorado $447,027

Connecticut $373,697

Delaware $362,881

District of Columbia $362,881

Florida $1,864,950

Georgia $1,045,869

Hawaii $362,881

Idaho $362,881

Illinois $1,265,728

Indiana $764,876

Iowa $372,163

Kansas $362,881

Kentucky $577,204

Louisiana $566,770

Maine $362,881

Maryland $466,854

Massachusetts $604,505

Michigan $1,239,838

Minnesota $512,759

Mississippi $424,574

Missouri $687,561

Montana $362,881

Nebraska $362,881

Nevada $362,881

New Hampshire $362,881

New Jersey $743,327

New Mexico $362,881

New York $1,829,821

North Carolina $1,089,450

North Dakota $362,881

Ohio $1,332,036

Oklahoma $418,336

Oregon $407,305

Pennsylvania $1,370,712

Rhode Island $362,881

South Carolina $573,680

South Dakota $362,881

Tennessee $748,866

Texas $2,432,653

Utah $362,881

Vermont $362,881

Virginia $729,693

Washington $618,587

West Virginia $365,960

Wisconsin $637,929

Wyoming $362,881

American Samoa $194,139

Guam $194,139

Northern Mariana Islands $194,139

Puerto Rico $887,069

Virgin Islands $194,139

Native American Protection and Advocacy Inc. $194,139

TOTAL $37,861,320
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 106 (Thursday, June 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13634]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER99-565-000]


Arizona Public Service Company; Notice of Filing

May 25, 2000.
    Take notice that on December 9, 1998, Arizona Public Service 
Company (APS), tendered for filing a request for withdrawal of its 
revised tariff sheets filed with the Commission in the above-referenced 
docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before June 5, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-13634 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M