alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21712]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Interest Rates

    The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called 
the optional ``peg'' rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This 
rate is a weighted average cost of money to the Government for 
maturities similar to the average SBA direct loan. This rate may be 
used as a base rate for guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. 
This rate will be 4.13 percent for the October-December quarter of 
fiscal year 2024. Pursuant to 13 CFR 120.921(b), the maximum legal 
interest rate for any third party lender's commercial loan which funds 
any portion of the cost of a 504 project (see 13 CFR 120.801) shall be 
6% over the New York Prime rate or, if that exceeds the maximum 
interest rate permitted by the constitution or laws of a given State, 
the maximum interest rate will be the rate permitted by the 
constitution or laws of the given State.

David Parrish,
Chief, Secondary Markets Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-21712 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6058 

STEPHEN SHIELDS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; CAROLYN

ROBINSON, Fairfax County Public Schools;

SHERMAN HARRISTON, Fairfax County Public

Schools; EMANUEL CALLOWAY, Fairfax County

Public Schools,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-04-631-2)

Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 6, 2005

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Shields, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Shields appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Shields v. Fairfax County Pub. Sch., No. CA-04-631-2 (E.D. Va.

Dec. 10, 2004). 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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
From: rosariocires@bellsouth.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:34:52 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Rosario Cires

, 33418-3540
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

600 

TP 11-02389 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF MICAIAH ALLEN, PETITIONER, 

V ORDER

HAROLD D. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT, AUBURN 

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENT. 

MICAIAH ALLEN, PETITIONER PRO SE. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County [Mark H.

Fandrich, A.J.], entered November 17, 2011) to review a determination

of respondent. The determination found after a Tier II hearing that

petitioner had violated various inmate rules. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said proceeding is unanimously

dismissed without costs as moot (see Matter of Free v Coombe, 234 AD2d

996).

Entered: June 8, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### Dickie Frelin WIMMER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Howard PAINTER, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent-Appellee, and George Trent, Respondent.

No. 01-6190.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 20, 2001.

Decided June 29, 2001.

Dickie Frelin Wimmer, pro se.

*113Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Dawn Ellen Warfield, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, WV, for appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Dickie Frelin Wimmer seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *Wimmer v. Painter,*No. CA-98-292-5 (S.D.W.Va. Mar. 30, 1999). 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 the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
No. 58304.

protest 224265-K (New York).

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*334Opinion, by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case, the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                                                  <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                            MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                               JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                 AUG-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                        1
<CASH>                                                        13,862,000
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  5,782,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      35,000
<INVENTORY>                                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              21,444,000
<PP&E>                                                         9,645,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 5,126,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                34,325,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         14,186,000
<BONDS>                                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<COMMON>                                                          48,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                    16,069,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  34,325,000
<SALES>                                                       23,609,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              23,609,000
<CGS>                                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 23,385,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               255,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  379,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     165,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              214,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     214,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0.04


</TABLE>
From: youhunt@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:43:44 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Tim Roth

Red Lion, PA 17356
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 08/22/2014

FROM: Laura Farris/EPA Region 8

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: R8 State HUB Call - August 7, 2014 

SUMMARY: 

EPA Headquarters staff, led by Janet McCabe, and EPA R8 Regional Administrator Shaun McGrath and 

staff, participated in a conference call with the EPA R8 States on Friday, August 7, 2014, to discuss 

common questions related to the proposed rule under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The rule was 

proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

EPA Headquarters

McCabe, Janet

Sherry, Christopher 

Clouse, Matt 

Conlin, Beth 

Wilson, Erika 

Mark, Jeremy 

DeYoung, Robyn 

Critchfield, James 

Harvey, Reid 

Dunham, Sarah 

Cortelyou-Lee, Jan 

Dalcher, Debra 

Solomon, David 

Santiago, Juan 

Ketcham-Colwill, Jim 

Kurlansky, Ellen 

Topham, Nathan 

Cohen, Michael 

Eschmann, Erich 

Hight, Cate 

EPA Region 8

Shaun McGrath

Joan Card

Callie Videtich

Darcy O’Connor

Carl Daly

Laura Farris

External Participants

Brian Gustafson, SD DEQ, and staff along with representatives from the SD PUC and Energy Office
Will Allison, CO CDPHE, and staff along with representatives from the CO PUC and Energy Office

Bryce Bird, UT DEQ, and staff along with representatives from the UT PUC and Energy Office

Dave Klemp, MT DEQ, and staff along with representatives from the MT PUC and Energy Office

Steve Dietrich, WY DEQ, and staff along with representatives from the WY PUC and Energy Office

Terry O’Clair, ND DEQ, and staff along with representatives from the ND PUC and Energy Office

Discussion Topics

• Can EPA walk through the conversion from a rate based to a mass based standard, or provide 

the numbers?

• If a state fails to meet its goals, what are the consequences?

• Can EPA describe how the accounting for EE works.

• Does EPA have any plans to work with other Feds on new transmission, RE, and natural gas 

pipeline siting issues; streamlining the NEPA process; and addressing the Sage Grouse issue 

regarding energy development? These are major issues related RE development and the 

increased use of NGCCs. 

• Can EPA discuss what might be acceptable regarding multi-state plans? Do states still submit 

individual state plans? Can they include more than one multi-state program or initiative? What if 

one state drops out of the Plan during the review or compliance period?

• Does a plant have to go through NSR when it is trying to achieve HRIs?

• Can EPA discuss the RE accounting mechanisms, both in goal setting and in compliance? Can the 

HRI's work the same way?

• How do states redispatch to NGCC units located in non-attainment areas?
AGREED ORDER 

CONTINUING TRIAL DATE - 1

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARNOLD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. CR06-5193 

) 

vs. ) AGREED ORDER 

) CONTINUING TRIAL DATE 

PATRICIA A. DUNN, ) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

____________________________________) 

THIS MATTER having come on before the Court on the agreed motion of the Defendant, 

PATRICIA A. DUNN, and the United States of America for an order continuing the trial date; 

the Court finding that this case is now scheduled for trial on August 28, 2006; the Court finding 

that good cause exists to continue the trial date; the Court finding that such a continuance is 

agreed to by the government; and the Court further finding that the ends of justice served by 

continuing the trial date outweighs the best interest of the public and the Defendant in a speedy 

trial; it is therefore 

ORDERED that the new trial date shall be the 25th day of September, 2006; and, it is 

further 

Case 3:06-cr-05193-KLS Document 19 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 3
AGREED ORDER 

CONTINUING TRIAL DATE - 2

Case 3:06-cr-05193-KLS Document 19 Filed 08/22/06 Page 2 of 3
AGREED ORDER 

CONTINUING TRIAL DATE - 3

ORDERED that the period of delay between August 28, 2006, and September 25, 2006, 

shall be excluded in computing the time within which the trial must commence pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3161. 

DONE IN OPEN COURT this 22nd day of August, 2006. 

_/s/ J. Kelley Arnold ______________ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE 

Presented by: Approved for Entry: 

WILLIAM R. MICHELMAN, INC., P.S. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

s/William R. Michelman s/Cpt. Glen E. Templeton 

_________________________________ __________________________________ 

William R. Michelman, WSBA #6803 By: Cpt. Glen E. Templeton 

Attorney for Defendant Special Assistant United States Attorney 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Case 3:06-cr-05193-KLS Document 19 Filed 08/22/06 Page 3 of 3
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 104

To state the Sense of the Senate regarding the tax status of payments

made as a result of the recent tobacco liability settlement.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 27, 1997

Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. LAUTENBERG, and Mr. KENNEDY) submitted

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Finance

RESOLUTION

To state the Sense of the Senate regarding the tax status

of payments made as a result of the recent tobacco

liability settlement.

Whereas the tobacco industry, state attorneys general, and

individual plaintiffs’ attorneys have reached an agreement to settle tobacco litigation in 40 states and the tobacco industry has agreed to pay $368.5 billion over 25

years, most of which would go to States;

Whereas, under the terms of this agreement, this payment

will be counted as a ‘‘normal and necessary’’ business expense and will therefore be considered tax deductible for

federal tax purposes, potentially requiring American taxpayers to subsidize up to $147 billion of the settlement

payment; and
2

SRES 104 IS

Whereas, while many of the details of the agreement will require further examination and possible alteration, the

United States Senate should go on record stating its concern about this provision’s potential impact on federal

revenues and the deficit: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that to

2 protect the interests of the American taxpayer, any legisla3 tion implementing the tobacco liability settlement shall

4 prohibit parties to the agreement from claiming federal

5 tax deductions for these payments.

Æ
From: mkoenes@iserv.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:51:03 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Michael Koenes

Grand Rapids, MI 49546
#### Dillard J. MURRAY, II, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-6679.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 27, 2005.

Decided Aug. 5, 2005.

*131Dillard J. Murray, II, Appellant pro se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Dillard J. Murray, II, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), as procedurally defaulted, and denying his motion for default judgment. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are-also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Murray has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIANA WATERS,

Defendant.

Case No. CR05-5828FDB

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Defendant Waters moves for reconsideration of the Court’s Order prohibiting contact with

the jurors in this case. Having reviewed Defendant’s motion, the Court is not inclined to change its

earlier ruling in this matter. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Waters’ Motion for Reconsideration Re:

Juror Contact [Dkt. # 396] is DENIED. 

DATED this 8th day of April, 2008.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cr-05828-RBL Document 398 Filed 04/08/08 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.5


 


Loans Extension Confirmation Letter


 


Reference is made
to the loans from Ms. Heung Mei Tsui to China Pharma Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), the principal and accumulated
interest totaled USD1,354,567 and USD84,849.59 respectively as of December 31, 2017. Due to the fact the Company temporarily did
not have enough balance in its oversea account to repay the loans, both Ms. Tsui and the Company agreed to extend the loans to
December 31, 2018, by which date the Company shall repay the principal and accumulated interest.


 


Creditor: /s/ Heung Mei Tsui


 


Debtor: China Pharma Holdings, Inc.


 


By: Zhilin
Li, President & CEO