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

###### Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 

Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. I), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Board of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), to be held from 1 p.m.-3 p.m. on Wednesday, April 4, 2007, at the Great Lakes Room of the Coast Restaurant, 931 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53202. The agenda for this meeting will be as follows: Opening Remarks; Consideration of Minutes of Past Meeting; Quarterly Report; Old and New Business; Closing Discussion; Adjournment. 

Attendance at the meeting is open to the interested public but limited to the space available. With the approval of the Administrator, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing further information should contact, not later than March 30, 2007, Anita K. Blackman, Chief of Staff, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; 202-366-0091. 

Any member of the public may present a written statement to the Advisory Board at any time. 

Issued at Washington, DC, on March 13, 2007. 

Collister Johnson, Jr., 

Administrator.

[FR Doc. E7-4863 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-61-P
Exhibit 10.2




TENTH AMENDMENT OF
 AMENDED AND RESTATED PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
 
 This Tenth Amendment of the Amended and Restated Participation Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of this 19th day of October, 2009, by and between and Union Bank and Trust Company, a Nebraska banking corporation and trust company, solely in its capacity as trustee of various grantor trusts known as Short Term Federal Investment Trusts or other grantor trusts (“Union Bank”) and National Education Loan Network, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Nelnet”).
 
 WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into that certain Amended and Restated Participation Agreement dated as of June 1, 2001, as amended (the “Agreement”), and the parties hereto wish to amend the Agreement under the terms set forth herein.
 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
 
 1.           Definitions.  Unless otherwise expressly stated herein, capitalized terms in this Amendment shall have the same meanings given to them in the Agreement.
 
 2.           Change in Definition of Nelnet’s Fee.  For purposes of Section 1.03 of the Agreement, Nelnet’s Fee shall be defined to equal the difference between (i) the total of interest received with respect to such Eligible Loans contained in a participation certificate, and an amount equal to 50 basis points (0.50%) above the average of the bond equivalent rates of the quotes of 3-month commercial paper (financial) in effect for each of the days in such quarter as reported by the Federal Reserve in Publication H-15 (or its successor) for the relevant 3-month period, multiplied by the average aggregate principal balance of all Eligible Loans participated under the Agreement.  Payments shall be distributed on a monthly basis, on the first business day of each month.
 
 3.           Effect of Amendment.  This Amendment shall be effective as of the date first set forth above. Unless expressly modified or amended by this Amendment, all terms and provision contained in the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect without modification.
  Union Bank and Trust Company


National Education Loan Network, Inc.By: /s/ Tom Sullivan


By: /s/ Jim KrugerTitle: Vice President


Title: Assistant Secretary
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-4187

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TRAVIS ANTONE WADEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-01-284) Submitted: December 6, 2002 Decided: December 24, 2002 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Robert A.J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Travis Antone Waden appeals his conviction of one count of possession with intent to distribute 212.2 grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2000). Waden pled guilty under a conditional plea agreement and was sentenced to 144 months in prison and five years of supervised release. On appeal, Waden argues the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. We affirm. We review the district court’s factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district court’s legal determinations de novo. SeeOrnelas v. United States , 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United States v. Rusher , 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992). When a suppression motion has been denied, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. See United States v. Seidman , 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). We have reviewed the district court’s denial of Waden’s motion to suppress the evidence seized from the search of his residence and find no error. 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
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of HLI Operating Company, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, James A. Yost, Vice President, Finance and 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, to the best of
my knowledge:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. /s/ James A. YostJames A. YostVice President, Finance and Chief Financial OfficerJune 15, 2004
 41
May 27, 2015

Mr. Bradley Shepherd

9434 200 th Street East Graham, WA 98338

Dear Mr. Shepherd:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your April 20, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1075), but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8219 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8219

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to assess 
  the suitability and feasibility of designating certain land as the 
        Lahaina National Heritage Area, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Lahaina National Heritage Area Study 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.
            (2) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Hawaii.
            (3) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means the census-
        designated place of Lahaina in Maui County in the State.

SEC. 3. LAHAINA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA STUDY.

    The Secretary, in coordination with the County of Maui and in 
consultation with State and local historic preservation officers, State 
and local historical societies, State and local tourism offices, and 
other appropriate organizations and governmental agencies, shall carry 
out, in accordance with section 120103(a) of title 54, United States 
Code, a study to assess the suitability and feasibility of designating 
the study area as a National Heritage Area, to be known as the 
``Lahaina National Heritage Area''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 4, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 8219

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to assess 
  the suitability and feasibility of designating certain land as the 
        Lahaina National Heritage Area, and for other purposes.
```
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Sothi Thillairajah, as Chief Executive Officer of IPEX, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of IPEX, Inc. for the
fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

      (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer is made
known to us by others, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;

      (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions);

      (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

June 9, 2006

 /s/ Sothi Thillairajah
--------------------------------
Sothi Thillairajah
Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32(a)**

 

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection withthe Form 10-QSB of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc. for the quarterended September 30, 2005, I, Martin S. Lapera, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc., hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1) such Form 10-QSBfor the quarter ended September 30, 2005, fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) the informationcontained in such Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30,2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
| /s/ Martin S. Lapera                   |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Martin S. Lapera                       |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4653 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4653

 To repeal portions of a regulation issued by the State Superintendent 
   of Education of the District of Columbia that require child care 
workers to have a degree, a certificate, or a minimum number of credit 
             hours from an institution of higher education.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 10, 2024

  Mr. Lee (for himself and Mrs. Britt) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal portions of a regulation issued by the State Superintendent 
   of Education of the District of Columbia that require child care 
workers to have a degree, a certificate, or a minimum number of credit 
             hours from an institution of higher education.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Childcare Worker Opportunity Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DC REGULATIONS REGARDING HIGHER EDUCATION 
              QUALIFICATIONS OF CHILD CARE WORKERS.

     Any provision of Chapter 1 of Subtitle A of Title 5 of the 
District of Columbia Municipal Regulations, as added by the final 
rulemaking of the State Superintendent of Education of the District of 
Columbia issued on December 7, 2016, that requires a staff member of a 
child development facility to have a degree, a certificate, or a 
minimum number of credit hours from an institution of higher education, 
including sections 164.1, 165.1, 166.1(a), 170.2(a), 173.3, 174.2(a), 
and 174.2(b), shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
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

ERNEST C. WALKER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2075 LKK DAD P

vs.

D. ALLBEE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On April 1, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and

recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility

to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f),

service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

Case 2:04-cv-02075-LKK -DAD Document 20 Filed 05/18/05 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

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 1, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: May 17, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/walk2075.802

Case 2:04-cv-02075-LKK -DAD Document 20 Filed 05/18/05 Page 2 of 2
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Eric Boehnke, President, Director, and Principal Executive
  Officer of Huron Ventures Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that,
  to the best of my knowledge and belief:

|1. | The amended Quarterly Report on Form
        10-QSB/A, of the Company for the nine month period ended March 31, 2004,
        as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Quarterly Report"),
        fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the
        Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The information contained in this Quarterly
        Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
        and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                                          

/s/ Eric Boehnke
  Eric Boehnke 
  President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director

May 18, 2004

---
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4691 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny the deduction for 

advertising and promotional expenses for prescription drugs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 11 (legislative day, JULY 10), 2024 

Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. DUCKWORTH, Mr. BROWN, 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. KING, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. 

VAN HOLLEN, Mr. MANCHIN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. REED, Mr. MURPHY, 

Mr. WELCH, Mr. KAINE, Ms. WARREN, Ms. BALDWIN, and Ms. HIRONO) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny the 

deduction for advertising and promotional expenses for 

prescription drugs. 

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 ‘‘No Tax Breaks for 

5 Drug Ads Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4691 IS

1 SEC. 2. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR ADVERTISING 

2 AND PROMOTIONAL EXPENSES FOR PRE3 SCRIPTION DRUGS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part IX of subchapter B of chap5 ter 1 of subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

6 is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 280I. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR DIRECT8 TO-CONSUMER ADVERTISING OF PRESCRIP9 TION DRUGS. 

10 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—No deduction shall be allowed 

11 under this chapter for expenses relating to direct-to-con12 sumer advertising of prescription drugs for any taxable 

13 year. 

14 ‘‘(b) DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER ADVERTISING.—For 

15 purposes of this section, the term ‘direct-to-consumer ad16 vertising’ means any dissemination, by or on behalf of a 

17 sponsor of a prescription drug product (as such term is 

18 defined in section 735(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 

19 Cosmetic Act), of an advertisement which— 

20 ‘‘(1) is in regard to such prescription drug 

21 product, and 

22 ‘‘(2) primarily targeted to the general public, 

23 including through— 

24 ‘‘(A) publication in journals, magazines, 

25 other periodicals, and newspapers, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4691 IS

1 ‘‘(B) broadcasting through media such as 

2 radio, television, and telephone communication 

3 systems, direct mail, and billboards, and 

4 ‘‘(C) dissemination on the Internet or 

5 through digital platforms (including social 

6 media, mobile media, web applications, digital 

7 applications, mobile applications, and electronic 

8 applications).’’. 

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec10 tions for such part IX of the Internal Revenue Code of 

11 1986 is amended by adding after the item relating to sec12 tion 280H the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 280I. Disallowance of deduction for direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.’’. 

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after 

15 the date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years 

16 ending after such date. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB