alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #10821 and #10822]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1687-DR), dated 03/03/2007. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Tornadoes. *Incident Period:*
                         03/01/2007. *Effective Date:*
                         03/03/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         05/02/2007. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         12/03/2007.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 03/03/2007, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):*
                     Coffee. *Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):*
                     Alabama: Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, Geneva, and Pike. The Interest Rates are: PercentFor Physical Damage:Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.750Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.875Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere
8.000Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.250Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000For Economic Injury:Businesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10821B and for economic injury is 108220. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008.) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. E7-4364 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

David Wesley Birrell,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1576 DFL PAN P

vs. Order

Joseph Bick, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoNovember 9, 2005, defendants requested leave to file and

serve an answer to the amended complaint two days late. They

also filed and served an answer. 

To obtain an extension based on a request filed beyond the

time the answer should have been filed he must show excusable

neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). To determine whether neglect is

excusable, I must consider the danger of prejudice to plaintiff,

the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial

proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was 

Case 2:04-cv-01576-GEB-EFB Document 19 Filed 11/23/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

within defendants’ control, and whether defendants acted in good

faith. Committee for Idaho’s High Desert, Inc., v. Yost, 92 F.3d

814, 825 & n.4. (9th Cir. 1996). 

Defendant asserts counsel was on leave from June 1, 2005,

until November 2, 2005, and November 6 counsel realized the

answer had to be filed November 7. 

Two days’ delay will not prejudice plaintiff or adversely

impact these proceedings and the court finds defendant acted in

good faith.

Defendants’ November 9, 2005, request is granted and the

answer is accepted as timely filed.

So ordered.

Dated: November 22, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01576-GEB-EFB Document 19 Filed 11/23/05 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 10095)

#### Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 876459.

(Decided November 6, 1961)

*Hays, Busty & Rivkin*for tbe plaintiff.

*William H. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

MollisoN, Judge:

The above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement relates to certain perfumes, exported from France on or about December 13,1960.

The appeal has been submitted for decision upon stipulation of counsel, on the basis of which I find that the articles involved are described on the final list (T.D. 54521), published by the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with the provisions of section 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956; that the proper basis for the determination of the value of said articles is cost of production, as defined in section 402a(f), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended; and that the cost of production in each instance is the invoiced unit price, packed, less 9.4 per centum.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
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

27

28

QUIN DENVIR, Bar #49374

Federal Defender

DAVID M. PORTER, Bar #127024

Assistant Federal Defender

801 "I" Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 498-5700

Attorneys for Petitioner

LEO ARCHER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEO ARCHER, )

) No. CIV S-04-2249 MCE KJM P

Petitioner, )

) ORDER

v. )

)

SOLANO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, )

et al., )

 )

Respondents. )

 )

Based on Petitioner’s Motion for Substitution of Counsel and for the

reasons stated therein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Stephanie Adraktas

shall be substituted in as counsel for Petitioner in place of the Office

of the Federal Defender for the Eastern District of California. 

Dated: October 11, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02249-MCE -KJM Document 8 Filed 10/12/05 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 23


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We have issued our report dated August 27, 2004 (except for Notes B and F(a), as
to which the date is September 20, 2004), accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of Jaco
Electronics, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2004. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in
the Registration Statements of Jaco Electronics, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form
S-8/S-3 (File No. 33-89994, effective March 3, 1995), as amended by
Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement of Jaco Electronics
on Form S-8/S-3 (File No. 333-49873, effective April 10, 1998), the Registration
Statement of Jaco Electronics, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8/S-3 (File No.
333-49877, effective April 10, 1998) and the Registration Statement of Jaco
Electronics, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8/S-3 (File No. 333-111065,
effective December 10, 2003).


/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
------------------------------
GRANT THORNTON LLP

Melville, New York
September 28, 2004
EXHIBIT
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Amendment
      No. 2 to the Annual
      Report on Form 10-K of Katy Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ending
      December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
      date hereof (the “Report”), I, Amir Rosenthal, Chief Financial Officer of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/
      Amir Rosenthal


Amir
      Rosenthal


Chief
      Financial Officer


October
      18, 2006





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany this report
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section
      18 of
      the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
      incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company whether made before
      or
      after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
      such
      filing. **** A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to the
      Company and will
      be retained by the
      Company and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAM SALAS RAMIREZ, No. CIV S-04-0759-MCE-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

CLAUDE FINN, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Respondents contend that petitioner has no federally protected liberty interest in

parole under California law. To support that contention, respondents rely on an order of a district

judge of this court in Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, 376 F. Supp. 2d 975 (E.D. Cal.

2005). The Sass case is under submission in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit following oral argument on March 16, 2006. 

In light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, the court sua sponte 

determines that justice requires appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see

also Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

Case 2:04-cv-00759-MCE -CMK Document 18 Filed 08/28/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Federal Public Defender is appointed to represent petitioner;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of petitioner’s habeas

corpus petition (Doc. 1) and a copy of this order on Ann McClintock, Assistant Federal Public

Defender;

3. Petitioner’s counsel shall contact the Clerk’s Office to make arrangements

for copies of other documents in the file; and

4. Within 60 days of the date of service of this order, the parties are directed

to file separate reports on the status of this case, addressing in particular any issues the parties

wish to bring to the attention of the court with respect to resolving the instant petition.

DATED: August 28, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00759-MCE -CMK Document 18 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 56402.

protests 22038-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### J. M. McDonald Import Co. et al. *v.*United States,

• Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
1845 - 0058

– Affected Public

– State, L ocal or Tribal Governments 8/27/2014

This request is for the extension of a current paperwork collection in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 1845 - 0085 for the reporting requirement contained in the regulations for States, not - for - profit lenders and eligible lender trus tees under 34 CFR 682.302 for the Federal Family

Education L oan (FFEL) Program. Section 682.302 contains information collection requirements. The information collection requirements are necessary to determine or recertify eligibility

to receive program benefits and to prevent fraud and abuse of program funds. The regulations in §682.302 require a State, non - profit entity , or eligible lender trustee to provide to the Secretary

a certification on the State or non - profit entity ’s letterhead signed b y the State or non - profit’s Chief Executive Officer which states the basis upon which the entity qualifies as a State or non - profit entity. T he submission must include documentation establishing the entity ’s State or non - profit status. In addition, the submission must include the name and lender identification number for which the eligible not - for - profit designation is being certified. Once an entity

has been approved as an eligible not - for - profit holder, the entity must provide to the Secretary

an annual certification on the State or non - profit entity’s letterhead signed b y the CEO, which includes the name and lender identification number(s ) of the entities for which designation is being recertified. The annual certification must state that the State or non - profit entity has not altered its status as a State or non - profit entity since its prior certification to the Secretary and that it continues to satisfy the requirements of an eligible not - for - profit holder either in its own right or through a trust agreement with an eligible lender trustee. When an approved not - for - profit holder has a change in status, within 10 day s of becoming aware of the occurrence of a change that may result in a State or non - profit entity that has been designated an eligible not - for - profit holder, either directly or through an eligible lender trustee, losing that eligibility , the State or non - profit entity must s ubmit details of the change to the Secretary . Based on applications filed for 2014 there is one less State entity who submitted the required documentation. Recalculated amount of burden for State entities: States submitting documentation 24 Averag e time to complete the submission 1.0 hour Total time to complete the submissions 24 hours
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

27

28

SC1 17061291.1 Stipulation for Dismissal and Order 

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 

Kurt A. Kappes (State Bar No.: 146384) 

Alfred L. Sanderson, Jr. (State Bar No.:186071) 

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350 

Sacramento, California 95814-4428 

Telephone: (916) 448-0159 

Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 

Attorneys for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RENEE M. ENRIQUEZ, NICHOL 

ENRIQUEZ, JUSTIN ENRIQUEZ, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. Civ. S-04-2299 GEB GGH 

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL AND 

ORDER 

The parties to this action have reached a resolution of the dispute and hereby stipulate 

that the action under this case number, specifically Case No. Civ. S-04-2299 GEB GGH, should 

be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), with each party to 

bear their own attorneys fees and costs (except as otherwise provided in the Release and 

Renunciation Agreement previously executed by the parties and approved by the Court), and 

with no party determined to be a prevailing party for any purpose. 

Case 2:04-cv-02299-GEB-GGH Document 25 Filed 05/03/05 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

2

Stipulation for Dismissal and Order 

SC1 17061291.1 

DATED: April ___, 2005 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 

/s/ 

By 

Alfred L. Sanderson Jr. 

Attorneys for plaintiff METROPOLITAN 

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 

DATED: April ___, 2005 VAUGHT & BOUTRIS, LLP 

 /s/ 

Jon Vaught 

Attorneys for defendant Rene M. Enriquez 

DATED: April ___, 2005 CAMPBELL LAW OFFICES 

 /s/ 

Teresa L. Green 

Attorneys for Mary Zile, guardian ad litem 

For Defendants Nichol Enriquez and Justin 

Enriquez

ORDER 

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the above-entitled action is dismissed with 

prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs (except as otherwise provided 

in the Release and Renunciation Agreement previously approved by the Court), and with no 

party determined to be the prevailing party for any purpose. 

DATED: 5/2/2005 

 /s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 

 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. 

 United States District Judge 

 

Case 2:04-cv-02299-GEB-GGH Document 25 Filed 05/03/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

December 15, 1958

No. 62599.

#### S. P. Skinner Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 205804-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Foed, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlesticks similar in all material respects to those the sub*451ject of Abstract 62036, except that they are not plated with platinum, gold, or silver, nor colored with gold lacquer, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ANGEL C. FEBUS-SANTINI, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

No. 28,565

October 4, 1974

*Colonel Victor A. DeFiori, Lieutenant Colonel Edward S. Adamkewicz, Jr., Captain Steven J. McAuliffe, Captain Leland M. Stenehjem, Jr.,*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Ronald M. Holdaway, Lieutenant Colonel Donald W. Hansen, Captain Francis X. Wright,*and *Captain David A. Schlueter,*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per CuRiam:

By amendment to the original convening order, the military judge who presided had been relieved. The court that tried this accused was, therefore, improperly constituted. *United States v Johnson,*23 USCMA 104, 48 CMR 665 (1974); *cf. United States v Harnish,*12 USCMA 443, 31 CMR 29 (1961). The decision of the U.S. Court of Military Review is reversed. The findings and sentence are set aside. A rehearing may be ordered.
No. 64163.

protest 59/24781 (New York).

#### Levatino Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with- rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution. .
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

301 Fannin, Room 245

Houston, Texas 77002

To: Chris Daniel June 12, 2015

County: Harris (C riminal )

Subject: RETURN OF ORIGINAL EXHIBITS

Ple ase acknowledge th e receipt of the original exhibits listed below. Please sign and return

the original to this court.

14

- 14

- 00828

- CR DeSergio Geterus Parrish v The State of Texas 1421465

State ’ s Exhibit 5, a DVD

State ’ s Exhibit 15, a CD

State ’ s Exhibit 15A, a CD

State ’ s Exhibit 22, a CD

Received by: ________________________________________

Received on: ________________________________________
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4686 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require the disclosure of 

the annual percentage rates applicable to Federal student loans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 11 (legislative day, JULY 10), 2024 

Mr. BARRASSO (for himself and Ms. LUMMIS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 

the disclosure of the annual percentage rates applicable 

to Federal student loans. 

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 ‘‘Transparency in Stu5 dent Lending Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIRED DISCLOSURES. 

7 Section 455(p) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

8 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(p)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4686 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘Each institution’’ and inserting 

2 the following: 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each institution’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(2) DISCLOSURE OF APR PRIOR TO DISBURSE6 MENT.—In addition to the disclosures required 

7 under paragraph (1), each institution and contractor 

8 described in such paragraph shall disclose to a bor9 rower before disbursement of a loan made under this 

10 part, in writing and in a form the borrower may 

11 keep, the annual percentage rate applicable to the 

12 loan, taking into account— 

13 ‘‘(A) the amount of the loan; 

14 ‘‘(B) the stated interest rate of the loan; 

15 ‘‘(C) the standard term for a loan of the 

16 same type; 

17 ‘‘(D) any fees or additional costs associ18 ated with the loan; and 

19 ‘‘(E) any capitalization of interest on the 

20 loan.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRADY ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2136 GEB PAN P 

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On January 19, 2006, defendants D. L. Runnels, Chandler, Phinney, Young,

Callison and Gellette filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. 

Local Rule 78-230(m) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file

written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any

opposition to the granting of the motion . . . .” On October 13, 2005, plaintiff was advised of the

requirements for filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may

be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. 

Local Rule 11-110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be

grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

inherent power of the Court.” In the order filed October 13, 2005, plaintiff was advised that 

Case 2:04-cv-02136-GEB-EFB Document 88 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be

dismissed.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days of the

date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, to defendants’ January 19, 2006,

motion to dismiss. Failure to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition

and will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b).

DATED: March 16, 2006.

\004

\arms2136.46osc

Case 2:04-cv-02136-GEB-EFB Document 88 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Robert Elmer Barber,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-1844 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

McGregor W. Scott, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoSeptember 28, 2005, respondent requested an extension of

time to file and serve a response to the petition. Good cause

appearing, respondent’s request is granted and time is extended

until 30 days from the date this order is signed. No further

extensions will be granted.

So ordered.

Dated: September 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01844-MCE -EFB Document 27 Filed 09/30/05 Page 1 of 1