alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52796-52797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26826]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Review of a Revised 
Information Collection: Form RI 98-7

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 98-7, Eligibility for Social Security Administration 
(SSA) Disability Benefits, is used to verify receipt of SSA disability 
benefits, make necessary adjustments to the Federal Employees 
Retirement System (FERS) disability benefit, and to notify the retiree 
of any overpayment amount payable to OPM. It also specifically notifies 
the retiree of his or her responsibility to notify OPM of his or her 
Social Security status and the consequences of non-notification.
    Approximately 2000 RI 98-7 forms will be completed annually. We 
estimate it takes approximately 5 minutes to complete the form. The 
annual burden is 166 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#3e5453585f4c4c51507e514e5310595148"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a4cec9c2c5d6d6cbcae4cbd4c98ac3cbd2">[email protected]</span></a>.


[[Page 52797]]


DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 60 calendar 
days from the date of this publication.

ADDRESSES: 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. 97-26826 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>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 23-2145

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

James Ferman Chatman

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________ 

Submitted: September 1, 2023

Filed: September 7, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

James Chatman received a 324-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty 

to sex trafficking of a child. See 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), (b). As part of the plea 

agreement, he waived his right to appeal. An Anders brief suggests that the waiver 
-2- 

is invalid and the district court1 imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable. See

United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the validity of 

an appeal waiver de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 

2003) (en banc) (explaining that an appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls 

within its scope, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea 

agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage 

of justice). We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no 

other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). 

We accordingly dismiss the appeal and grant counsel permission to withdraw.

______________________________

1

The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District 

Court for the District of Nebraska.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRENT EVAN WEBSTER,

Appellant,

v.

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT,

Appellee. No. 20

- 35979

D.C. No. 3:20

- cv

- 01403

- MO

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 14, 2021 * *

Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Brent Evan Webster appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion for

conversion to chapter 12. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 16 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 35979

In his opening brief, Webster fails to address how the district court erred by

dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As a result, Webster has waived his

challenge to the district court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052

(9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief

are deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We

will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not

preserve a claim . . . .” ).

We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Mano

- Y

& M, Ltd. v. Field (In re Mortg. Store, Inc.) , 773 F.3d 990, 998 (9th Cir. 2014);

Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.17

                              FIRST AMENDMENT TO

                          AECOM TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

               MANAGEMENT SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

                             EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1998



THIS AMENDMENT, by AECOM Technology Corporation, hereinafter sometimes referred
to as the "Company," is made with reference to the following facts:

Effective July 1, 1998, AECOM Technology Corporation adopted the AECOM
Technology Corporation Management Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan,
Effective July 1, 1998 which reserves to the Board of Directors of AECOM
Technology Corporation the right to amend said Plan (Section 4.1 thereof). The
Company has executed this First Amendment for the purpose of amending said Plan
in the manner hereinafter provided.

NOW, THEREFORE, the AECOM Technology Corporation Management Supplemental
Executive Retirement Plan, Effective July 1, 1998 is hereby amended as follows,
effective January 1, 2002:

                                       I.

Section 2.13 is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

     "2.13 Participant refers to an employee of the Company who (a) is a member
           -----------
           of a select group of management or highly compensated employees
           (within the meaning of Section 201(2) of ERISA), and (b) has ceased
           to participate in the AECOM Pension Plan pursuant to the provisions
           of Section 3.1(a)(2) thereof. The Committee shall maintain a record
           of Participants."

                                       II.

Section 2.20 is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

     "2.20 Total AECOM Pension Plan Benefit means the annual benefit the
           Participant would have received under the AECOM Pension Plan, if the
           amendments to the AECOM Pension Plan, effective July 1, 1998 and
           January 1, 2002, terminating participation for Members eligible for
           the AECOM Technology Corporation Incentive Compensation Plan, had not
           been adopted."

                                       1
<PAGE>

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to be executed
as of January 1, 2002.


                                                    AECOM Technology Corporation


                                            By:  /s/ Eric Chen
                                               ---------------------------------

                                            Title:     Vice President
                                                  ------------------------------

                                            Date:     December 7, 2001
                                                 -------------------------------

                                       2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             451
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,987
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (298)
<INVENTORY>                                     10,873
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           1,159
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (658)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,034
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,160
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,478)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,034
<SALES>                                        (1,569)
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               (1,569)
<CGS>                                            1,056
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,017
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   149
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,437)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,199)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,238)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.77)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 22.0

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

(1) EVANS OIL OF LOUISIANA, INC.
    100% Owned Subsidiary
    Incorporated in the State of Louisiana

(2) IN & OUT MINI MART, INC.
    100% Owned Subsidiary
    Incorporated in the State of Texas

(3) DIAMOND MINI MART, INC.
    100% Owned Subsidiary of
    In & Out Mini Mart, Inc.
    Incorporated in the State of Texas

(4) EVANS OIL COMPANY, INC.
    100% Owned Subsidiary
    Incorporated in the State of Texas

(5) EDCO, INC.
    19% Owned Subsidiary of Evans Systems, Inc.
    81% Owned Subsidiary of Evans Oil Company, Inc.
    Incorporated in the State of Texas

(6) WAY ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
    100% Owned Subsidiary
    Incorporated in the State of Delaware

(7) CHEMWAY SYSTEMS, INC.
    100% Subsidiary of the Way Energy Systems, Inc.
    Incorporated in the State of Texas

(8) EDCO ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, INC.
    100% Owned Subsidiary
    Incorporated in the State of Texas

(9) DISTRIBUTOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS CORPORATION 100% Owned Subsidiary
    Incorporated in the State of Texas
## DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

Standard Operating Permit Condition VIII – Visible

Emissions and Particulate Matter Monitoring Plan for Gas-Fired Fuel Burning Equipment

Permit Condition for Air Quality Permits Adopted by Reference in 18 AAC 50.346

April 1, 2002

REVISED August 25, 2004Standard Operating Permit Condition VIII – Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter Monitoring Plan for Gas-Fired Fuel Burning Equipment 1 April 1, 2002 Revised August 25, 2004 

## Standard Operating Permit Condit ion VIII –Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter Monitoring Plan for Gas-Fired Fuel Burning Equipment

Emission Unit [SOURCE] or Stationary Source [FACILITY] Categories This Condition Applies to: Gas-fired fuel burning equipment s ubject to the opacity standard of 18 AAC 50.055(a)(1), except flares.

The department will use standard operating permit condition VIII in any operating permit unless the department determines that emission unit [SOURCE] or stationary source [FACILITY] specific conditions more adequately m eet the requirements of 18 AAC 50.

Circumstances where emission unit [S OURCE] or stationary source [FACILITY] specific conditions more adequately meet 18 AAC 50 include:

1. if the department finds that equipment may not adequately eliminate entrained liquid.



### Permit Wording:

1. Visible Emissions. The permittee shall not cause or allow visible emissions, excluding condensed water vapor, emitted from <identify emission units [SOURCES]> to reduce visibility through the exhaust effluent by more than 20 percent averaged over any six consecutive minutes. (18 AAC 50.055(a)(1))

1.1 Monitoring, Record Keeping, and Reporting.

a. The permittee shall use only gas as fuel in emission units [SOURCES]

< emission unit [SOURCE] citations>. The permittee shall certify in each operating report required under condition <i nsert cross reference to standard permit condition VII - operat ing reports> that the emission unit [SOURCE] burned only gas.

b. The permittee shall report under condition <insert cross reference to standard permit condition III - excess emissions and permit deviation reports> if any fuel is burned other than gas.

2. Particulate Matter Emissions. In accordance with 18 AAC 50.055(b)(1), the permittee shall not cause or allow particulate matter emitted from <identify emission units [SOURCES] > to exceed 0.05 grains per cubic f oot of exhaust gas corrected to standard conditions and averaged over three hours.Standard Operating Permit Condition VIII – Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter Monitoring Plan for Gas-Fired Fuel Burning Equipment 2 April 1, 2002 Revised August 25, 2004 2.1 Monitoring, Record Keeping, and Reporting. The permittee shall comply with

condition VIII.1.1.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                   EXHIBIT 12

           COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                                  -----------------------------------------------
                                                                    2005      2004      2003      2002      2001
                                                                  -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
<S>                                                               <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Net Income Before Discontinued Operations and Minority Interest   $ 5,678   $ 2,816   $12,582   $16,960   $15,571

Add:
   Interest expense including Amortization of Debt Costs           33,702    32,446    28,450    25,216    24,387
   Rental expense - interest component @ 20%                          136       112       110        97        98
                                                                  -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
                                                                  $39,516   $35,374   $41,142   $42,273   $40,056
                                                                  =======   =======   =======   =======   =======
Fixed Charges:
   Interest expense including Amortization of Debt Costs          $33,702   $32,446   $28,450   $25,216   $24,387
   Rental expense - interest component @ 20%                          136       112       110        97        98
   Total Fixed Charges                                            $33,838   $32,558   $28,560   $25,313   $24,485
                                                                  =======   =======   =======   =======   =======
   Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges                        1.2       1.1       1.4       1.7       1.6
</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EDWARD J. NICHOLAS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 06-112 Erie

v. )

)

SCOTT EVANS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This civil rights action was received by the Clerk of Court on May 15, 2006, and

was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report and

recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and

Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 2], filed on July

18, 2006, recommended that the action be dismissed as legally frivolous pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d). The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to

file objections. Service was made on Plaintiff by certified mail and on Defendants. 

Plaintiff filed objections on July 21, 2006 [Doc. No. 3]. After de novo review of the

motion and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation and

objections thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 25th day of September, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED as legally frivolous

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 2] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on July 18, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00112-SJM-SPB Document 15 Filed 09/25/06 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Rufus Joseph HENRY.

No. 62140.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 12, 1978.

In re: Rufus Joseph Henry applying for writ of review. Parish of St. Mary.

Denied.

DIXON and CALOGERO, JJ., would grant the writ

TATE and MARCUS, JJ., will reconsider their view if the practice continues.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7779
BENJAMIN ROSS DOWNEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-02-324-3) Submitted: January 30, 2003 Decided: February 5, 2003 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin Ross Downey, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Benjamin Ross Downey appeals from the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as abusive and malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2000). In a previous § 1983 action, Downey raised identical claims against the same defendant. Downey v. Angelone , No. CA-97-239 (E.D. Va. June 16, 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Downey v. Angelone , No. CA-02-324-3 (E.D. Va. Oct. 28, 2002). 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) (B)





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 United Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brenda M.
Hudson-Nelson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. '1350, as
adopted pursuant to '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/
Brenda M. Hudson-Nelson





Brenda M.
Hudson-Nelson


Executive
Vice President


Principal
Financial Officer


March 31,
2010
#### Harry MINSKY v. The UNITED STATES of America.

No. 5986.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Nov. 6, 1936.

John Elliott Byrne and Lewis F. Jacobson, both of Chicago, 111., for appellant.

Michael Igoe, of Chicago, 111., for the United States.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges, and BRIGGLE, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and was argued by counsel.

On consideration whereof it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.