alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26822]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Review of a Revised 
Information Collection: Form RI 94-7

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of 
Management and Budget a request for review of a revised information 
collection. RI 94-7, Death Benefit Payment Rollover Election for 
Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), provides FERS surviving 
spouses and former spouses with the means to elect payment of the FERS 
rollover-eligible benefits directly or to an Individual Retirement 
Account.
    Approximately 700 RI 94-7 forms will be completed annually. We 
estimate it takes approximately 60 minutes to complete the form. The 
annual burden is 700 hours.
    Comments are particularly invited on:

--whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of functions of the Office of Personnel Management, and 
whether it will have practical utility;
--whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection is 
accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and
--ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on those who are to respond, through use of the appropriate 
technological collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology.

    For copies of this proposal, contact Jim Farron on (202) 418-3208, 
or E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#600a0d060112120f0e200f100d4e070f16"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c6acaba0a7b4b4a9a886a9b6abe8a1a9b0">[email protected]</span></a>

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before 
December 8, 1997.

ADDRESS: Send or deliver comments to--John C. Crawford, Chief, FERS 
Division, Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S. Office of Personnel 
Management, 1900 E Street, NW, Room 3313, Washington, DC 20415.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION CONTACT: Mary 
Beth Smith-Toomey, Management Services Division, (202) 606-0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Janice R. Lachance,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 97-26822 Filed 10-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GARY V. SKIBA, TRUSTEE )

) 

Appellant, )

)

) Civil Action No. 05-151 Erie

)

) Bankruptcy No. 04-11311

)

v. )

)

TIMOTHY M. LAHER, et al., )

)

Appellees. )

ORDER

McLAUGHLIN, J.

This matter is before the Court upon Appellees’ motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #11). In

the underlying opinion in this case, we ruled that the Appellees’ interest in a TIAA-CREF retirement

plan could not be excluded from their bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2). In reaching

our decision, we cited In re Quinn, 299 B.R. 450 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2003) (“Quinn I”). On July

15, 2003, the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan overturned Quinn,

holding that the TIAA annuity was “tantamount” to a trust and therefore excluded under § 541(c)(2).

In re Quinn, 2005 WL 1879273 (W.D. Mich. 2005) (“Quinn II”). 

The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to “correct manifest errors of law or fact or

to present newly discovered evidence.” Max’s Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176

F.3d 669, 677 (3rd Cir. 1999) (citing Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3rd Cir.1985).

Thus, the appropriate grounds for granting such a motion are limited to: (1) an intervening change

in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court

granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or

to prevent manifest injustice. Id; see also North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d

1194, 1218 (3d Cir.1995).

Here, Appellees ask us to reconsider our prior ruling based on the fact that one of several

Case 1:05-cv-00151-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/06/05 Page 1 of 2
2

cases relied upon in our opinion has been overturned. The facts and evidence are not in dispute here,

and a Michigan district court case is not “controlling law.” Thus, we read Appellees motion as a

request to correct what they perceive to be a clear error of law.

Upon review, we decline to grant the requested motion for reconsideration. The decision by

a district court in another jurisdiction to align itself with those cases that we have rejected rather than

those upon which we relied does not demonstrate a clear error of law. Indeed, we are particularly

unpersuaded by Quinn II given its heavy reliance upon the rationale stated in Skiba v. Gould (In re

Gould), 322 B.R. 741, 744 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2005), the very bankruptcy court decision that we

overturned in our underlying opinion. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons state above, Appellees’ motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #11) is DENIED.

/s/ Sean J. McLaughlin - 9/6/05 

United States District Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00151-SJM Document 14 Filed 09/06/05 Page 2 of 2
#### In Re a MINOR CHILD

High Court of American Samoa Trial Division

JR No. 15-93

May 10, 1993

Before RICHMOND, Associate Justice, AFUOLA, Associate Judge, and MATA'UTIA, Associate Judge.

Counsel: For the Minor Child and Petitioners, Asaua Fuimaono

This petition to establish the paternity of a minor child came regularly on April 30, 1993 for hearing. The minor child and petitioners AS and LS appeared personally and by counsel. The court, having heard testimony and considered the evidence, finds:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The minor child and petitioners are residents of American Samoa.

*32. The minor child was bom on June 24, 1975 in American Samoa.

3. The minor child’s birth certificate, Certificate Number 75671, states that LL is his natural mother and PG is his natural father.

4. On or before March 29, 1993, PG received a copy of the petition for termination of his parental rights based on the minor child’s birth certificate, which was also filed in this proceeding, and notice of the hearing on April 30, 1993. On October 10, 1991, he signed an affidavit in California essentially confirming the facts, based on petitioners’ testimony, as set forth herein, in particular the total lack of cohabitation and any sexual access between petitioner LS and himself during the period of time when the minor child was conceived.

5. Petitioner LS and LL are the same person. At the time of the minor child’s conception and birth, she was married to PG. However, she and PG had not cohabited since 1968. Moreover, he took up permanent residence in California no later than during 1972 and next returned to American Samoa for a brief visit in 1976. She obtained a divorce from PG on the grounds of desertion on September 5, 1975.

6. Petitioners began to cohabit in 1974, more than nine months prior to the minor child’s birth. Petitioner LS did not have sexual relations with any other male during the period of time when the minor child was conceived. She is the minor child’s natural mother. Petitioner AS is the minor child’s natural father.

7. Petitioners married on November 11, 1975 in American Samoa and ever since have been husband and wife.

8. Petitioners have raised the minor child in their household from his birth to the present time.

From the foregoing facts, the court concludes:

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Since petitioner LS and PG were not cohabiting when the minor child was conceived, the conclusive presumption at common law that the minor child is the legitimate child of their marriage is inapplicable. *See Hughes*v. Hughes, 271 P.2d 172 (Cal. App. 1954). The disputable presumption of such legitimacy applicable in such circumstances has been clearly overcome by the lack of cohabitation and any sexual access *4between this married couple at the time of conception. *See Cronn v. Vaccari,*10 Cal. Rptr. 4 (Cal. App. 1960).

2. In accordance with A.S.C.A. § 42.0501(a), the minor child is petitioners’ legitimate, natural son.

3. Pursuant to A.S.C.A. § 42.0501(b), the Registrar of Vital Statistics shall void the minor child’s original birth certificate and shall reissue his birth certificate with the correct information on it.
#### MIAMI MASONRY, INCORPORATED, et al., Petitioners, v. Willie TAYLOR et al., Respondents.

No. 40801.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 21, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2 - Chief Financial Officer Certification (Section 906)

                        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 Annual Report of RPM Advantage, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
thereof (the "Report").

I, David R. Pressler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

               (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of
                     section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
                     of 1934; and

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

/s/ David R. Pressler
--------------------------
    David R. Pressler
    CEO President and Director


Date  April 25, 2011
      -----------------
Exhibit 10.7  Translated From Japanese Request for Loan with Draft Loan (Change) [Notice of Applicable Interest Rate Period] Application date: August 11, 2008 Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Address
        11F NishiShinjuku Showa Building
 13-12 NishiShinjuku 1 cho-me, Shinjuku-ku Tokyo
 Name
        IA Partners, Inc.
 President& CEO
        Hideki Anan
  Having confirmed the following conditions, I do hereby submit a request to Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation for loan with draft loan service (change) as outlined below. If you consent, please deposit the applicable amount to my (the applicants) account. If this request is the request for change and rejected after your judgment, I will not object. If I apply market rate for basic interest rate, I notify applicable interest rate period here. Amount
        100,000,000 yenUse
        Operating fundsDesired date of deposit
        August 12, 2008
        Expected date of final repayment
        August 19, 2008
  Payment details
        Payment cycle
        Payment date
        Number of payments
        Amount repaidmonths
        of each month
        times
        YenYenYenYenFinal due date
        
        100,000,000 yenMethod of interest payment
        Lump sum paymentHandling of bank holidays
        In the event that one of the dates above falls on a bank holiday, the payment shall be made on the following business day.
  Basic interest rate
        □  Short-term prime rate
        Applicable interest rate
        3.35% APR□Applicable interest rate period
        In the event that the applicable interest rate period is divided within the borrowing period and rates are adjusted accordingly:Starts:
Ends:
        1. Rates automatically adjusted on theeverymonths.
2. Notification made each time with Notice of Applicable Interest Rate Period.
  -------------------------------------------For Bank Use--------------------------------------------------------- Branch No.
        Branch Name
        Process for Final Date
        Decision (Approved / Not Approved) Date of judgment(     /      /               )
        Verification
        Verification
        Person in Charge
        Transaction copy check
        Loan seal checkXXX
        XXX
        Manager
        Section Chief
        Person in ChargeLoan Acct. No.
        Activity No.
        □ Automatic transferXXX
        XXX
        □ ID check
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26655]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    Notice is hereby given that on September 29, 1997, a proposed 
Consent Decree in United States v. Case Corporation, et al., Civil 
Action No. 97-4101, was lodged with the United States District Court 
for the Central District of Illinois.
    The Consent Decree settles an action brought under Section 107 of 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 
Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601, et seq., (``CERCLA'') for the recovery of 
past costs incurred by the United States in responding to releases or 
threatened releases of hazardous substances at the A.A. Waste Oil Site, 
located in Rock Island, Illinois. The proposed settlement set forth in 
the Consent Decree addresses the liability of twenty-eight defendants 
in this action, each of which has been named as a generator of 
hazardous substances sent to the Site. Under the terms of the proposed 
decree, the settling defendants will pay the United States a total of 
$395,000 in settlement of the United States' past costs claims against 
them.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
Consent Decrees. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney 
General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department 
of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United States v. 
Case Corporation, et al., D.J. Ref. 90-11-2-1261.
    The Consent Decree may be examined at the office of the United 
States Attorney, Central District of Illinois, 100 N.E. Monroe Street, 
Room 216, Peoria, IL 61620, at United States Environmental Protection 
Agency Region V, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 
and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street NW., 4th Floor, 
Washington, DC 20005. In requesting copies of these three proposed 
settlements, please enclose a check in the amount of $12.75 (25 cents 
per page reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree Library, and 
should refer to United States v. Case Corporation, et al., D.J. Ref. 
90-11-2-1261.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-26655 Filed 10-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,035
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,031
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        621
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,706
<PP&E>                                             278
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,967
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,687
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,658
<SALES>                                         12,353
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,353
<CGS>                                            5,738
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,738
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,956
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,031)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,031)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Create an account.

First you’ll provide some 

basic information to get 

going. Sign up for SHOP 

emails now and we’ll let you 

know as soon as you can 

create an account.

Apply

In order to be eligible to use 

SHOP, your business must 

meet certain eligibility 

requirements. Starting 

October 1, 2013 you’ll enter 

information about your 

business, including all 

employees eligible for 

coverage.

How the SHOP Marketplace Works

Pick a Plan

You’ll see all the plans 

available to you and can 

compare price, coverage, 

and other features 

side-by-side. Choose a plan 

that meets your needs and 

decide how much you’ll pay 

toward employee coverage.

Enroll

Let your employees know 

they can sign up for 

coverage. Coverage starts 

as soon as January 1, 2014 

and can begin any time 

after that.

CMS Product No. 11670

June 2013

HealthCare.gov

1-800-318-2596
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Motorvehicle use map. Bighorn National Forest, Wyoming**
 
2007 | 2011| 2013 | 2016
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28:B 48/6/
Item Number:0080-G (online)
CGP systemNumber:000910751
 
June 28, 2018
#### David Alexander GREEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1101.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 25, 1971.

Koeppel, Stark, Marks & Newmark, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ-

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed, upon authority of Perkins v. State, Fla.1969, 228 So.2d 382; and Marden v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 638.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2763 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2763

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 2395 East Del Mar Boulevard in Laredo, Texas, as the ``Lance 
 Corporal David Lee Espinoza, Lance Corporal Juan Rodrigo Rodriguez & 
          Sergeant Roberto Arizola Jr. Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 12, 2023

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 2395 East Del Mar Boulevard in Laredo, Texas, as the ``Lance 
 Corporal David Lee Espinoza, Lance Corporal Juan Rodrigo Rodriguez & 
          Sergeant Roberto Arizola Jr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL DAVID LEE ESPINOZA, LANCE CORPORAL JUAN 
              RODRIGO RODRIGUEZ & SERGEANT ROBERTO ARIZOLA JR. POST 
              OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2395 East Del Mar Boulevard in Laredo, Texas, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Lance Corporal David Lee Espinoza, Lance 
Corporal Juan Rodrigo Rodriguez & Sergeant Roberto Arizola Jr. Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lance 
Corporal David Lee Espinoza, Lance Corporal Juan Rodrigo Rodriguez & 
Sergeant Roberto Arizola Jr. Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Clifford ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-209.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 21, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
Case 1:06-cv-00041-MBC-SPB   Document 16   Filed 11/09/06   Page 1 of 2

Case 1:06-cv-00041-MBC-SPB   Document 16   Filed 11/09/06   Page 2 of 2
PUBLIC LAW 104–178—AUG. 6, 1996 110 STAT. 1565

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3215:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104–681 (Comm. on the Judiciary).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 142 (1996):

July 29, considered and passed House.

July 31, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 104–178

104th Congress

An Act

To amend title 18, United States Code, to repeal the provision relating to Federal

employees contracting or trading with Indians.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES CONTRACTING OR TRADING WITH

INDIANS.

(a) REPEAL.—Section 437 of title 18, United States Code, is

repealed.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the

beginning of chapter 23 of title 18, United States Code, is amended

by striking the item relating to section 437.

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The repeal made by subsection (a) shall—

(1) take effect on the date of enactment of this Act; and

(2) apply with respect to any contract obtained, and any

purchase or sale occurring, on or after the date of enactment

of this Act.

Approved August 6, 1996.

18 USC 437 note.

Aug. 6, 1996

[H.R. 3215]