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

~~ i ED sr

~ r ~ s z ifNrTEtB STA°fES EIVViROPlMENTAL PRO7"ECTiON AGEtVCI' o Q WASHINGT{3N, D.C. 20460 ti =

0

~ 2T q: PRO 1E0\

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION


### David Moody, Ph.D., Manager Carlsbad Field Office U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, N?M 88221-3090 Dear Dr. Moody: On August I, 2007, the Department of Energy (DOE), Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) requested the Environmental Proteetion Ageney's (EPA) approval of the extension of the operational range of the HENC 2 non-destructive assay (NDA) system, for contact-handled (CH) transuranic (TRU) waste used by the Central Characterization Projeet (CCP) at the Los Aiamos National Laboratory (LANL). In the baseline inspection report for LANL (Docket no. A-98-49; I1-A4-88), EPA identified the extension of the operational range of the HENC 2 NDA system as a Tier I change, which requires EPA approval prior to implementation. According to the requirements of 40 CFR194.8 (b), DOE appropriately requested approval of this change as a Tier I change to the LANLCCP CH baseline approval. EPA conducted a review of documents and conducted a conference call on September 12, 2007 to evaluate the proposed change to the LANL-CCP HENC 2. EPA's evaluation of the operational range extension for the HENC 2 included an examination of the procedures, a review of the calibration records, and an examination of Batch Data Reports (BDR) for the HENC 2. EPA's evahtation did not identify any findings or coneerns requiring a response related to the use of the HENC 2 for the characterization of CH TRIJ waste. EPA's report for evaluation of the extension of the operational range of the HENC 2 is enclosed and will be placed in the Agency's public docket. EPA has determined that the HENC 2 system used by LANI, CCP is adequate for the characterization of CH TRU waste. This approval does not make any changes to the tiering table provided with the baseline approval. Further changes to the approved components of the HENC 2 system at LA_NI, CCP, must follow the tiering requirements described in the June 21, 2007

fnternet Address (URF) 0 httG ilwww.epa.gov RecycledfRecyctab3e ® Prin,ted with VeOetabie Oii Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Proeess Chlorbne Pree Recycled Paper2

baseline inspection report issued for the LANL-CCP CH "I'RU program (Docket no. A-98-49; I1- A4-88). If you have any questions regarding this approvai, please contact Ed Feltcorn at (202) 343-9422 or Rajani Joglekar at (202) 343-9462.



### Sincerel ,
~

f 

# ~ ;
Juan Reves. DirE'eCor Radiation Protection Division


### Enclosures

cc: Electronic Distribution Lloyd Piper, CBFO Vernon Daub, CBFO Casey Gadbury, CBFO Courtland Fesmire, CBFO Norma Castaneda, CBFO Martuz Navarrete, CBFO Dennis Miehls, CBFO Allison Pangle, CTAC Wayne Ledford, C'CAC
EX-4.4



 Exhibit 4.4 
  





 

  
 COMMON STOCK 
SEE REVERSE FOR LEGEND 
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 
THIS CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERRABLE IN NEW YORK, NY 
AND PHILADELPHIA, PA 
AMPCO-PITTSBURGH CORPORATION THIS CERTIFIES THAT SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN
DEFINITIONS IS THE OWNER OF CUSIP 032037 10 3 FULL PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES, OF THE PAR VALUE OF $1 EACH OF THE COMMON STOCK OF SECRETARY CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD COUNTERSIGNED: BROADRIDGE CORPORATE ISSUER SOLUTIONS, INC. 1717 ARCH ST., STE.
1300, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 TRANSFER AGENT BY: AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 








 



 

  
 AMPCO-PITTSBURGH CORPORATION 
THE CORPORATION WILL FURNISH WITHOUT CHARGE TO EACH STOCKHOLDER WHO SO REQUESTS THE DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES AND RELATIVE, PARTICIPATING, OPTIONAL OR OTHER SPECIAL RIGHTS OF EACH
CLASS OF STOCK OR SERIES THEREOF OF THE CORPORATION, AND THE QUALIFICATIONS, LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF SUCH PREFERENCES AND/ OR RIGHTS. SUCH REQUEST MAY BE MADE TO THE CORPORATION OR THE TRANSFER AGENT. 
The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws
or regulations: TEN COM—as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT— Custodian.... .(Cust) (Minor) under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (State) 
TEN ENT —as
tenants by the entireties JT TEN —as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common 
Additional abbreviations may also be used though
not in the above list. 
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER 
IDENTIFYING
NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) 
NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY
CHANGE WHATEVER.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed May 29, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00466-CV
DALLAS WAYNE SCOTT, Appellant
V.
RICHARDSON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. TX-07-40323 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright a nd Justices Lang-Miers and Brown Opinion by Chief Justice Wright By notice of appeal filed April 15, 2014, appellant challenges a September 9, 2008 judgment. Because the notice of appeal was filed out side any of the time frames listed in rule of appellate procedure 26, which governs the time to perf ect appeals, we directed appellant to file a letter brief explaining how the Cour t had jurisdiction over the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1,
26.3. Although more than ten days ha ve passed since we requested th e letter brief, appellant has not filed the brief or otherwise communicated with the Court. Our jurisdiction is invoked upon the timely filing of a noti ce of appeal from a final judgment. Lehman v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Garza v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank , 227 S.W.3d 233, 233 (Tex. App.-–Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). Generally, the–2– deadline to file a notice of appeal runs from the date of judgment. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1; see also id. 4.2 (providing that if notice of judgment is not received within twenty days after judgment is signed, deadline runs from date notice is received but no later than ninety days from signing of judgment). Rule 26.1 provides four time frames fo r filing a notice of appeal. See id. 26.1. These time frames are based on the type of judgment or order bei ng appealed and range from twenty days in an accelerated appeal to six months in a restricted appeal. See id. Additionally, rule 26.3 provides for one fifteen-day extension of time. See id. 26.3. Based on the time frames listed in rule 26, the notice of appeal here, filed more than five years after the complained-of judgment, is un timely and fails to i nvoke our jurisdiction. See Garza , 227 S.W.3d 233. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

140466F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
DALLAS WAYNE SCOTT, Appellant
No. 05-14-00466-CV V.
RICHARDSON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. TX-07-40323. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Brown participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. We ORDER that appellee Richardson Independent Sc hool District recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from a ppellant Dallas Wayne Scott.
Judgment entered May 29, 2014

/Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62286]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30690]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Massachusetts Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Massachusetts Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 
10:00 a.m. and adjourn at 3:00 p.m. on Friday, December 5, 1997, at the 
Board of Directors Room, Alumnae House, Smith College, Northampton, 
Massachusetts 01063. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss followup 
activities to the Springfield briefing on police-community relations 
and plan for the 1998 Civil Rights Leadership Conference.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Committee Chairperson Fletcher 
Blanchard, 413-585-3909, or Ki-Taek Chun, Director of the Eastern 
Regional Office, 202-376-7533 (TDD 202-376-8116). Hearing-impaired 
persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign 
language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten 
(10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, November 18, 1997.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 97-30690 Filed 11-18-97; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
#### Charles Eugene CHAFFIN v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 45544.

STATE of Mississippi.

Oct. 27, 1969.

William S. Turner, Aberdeen, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Velia A. Mayer, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

*479RODGERS, Justice.

The appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of manslaughter. He was sentenced to serve a term of fifteen (IS) years in the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman. He has appealed to this Court from a judgment of the trial court, and contends that he should be given a new trial, because, it is said, the verdict of the jury is contrary to the law and the instructions given to the jury.

The appellant’s conviction grew out of an automobile accident which occurred at a time when the appellant was said to have been driving on the wrong side of the road, while intoxicated, at a speed of over 100 miles per hour. There is more than ample testimony to sustain the charge that the accident and death of the driver of the automobile struck by appellant was the result of the culpable negligence of Charles Eugene Chaffin, within the meaning of Section 2232, Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated (1956).

The appellant admitted that he had taken one drink of intoxicating liquor at 7:30 or 8:00 o’clock on the morning before the time when the accident occurred at 11:00 o’clock. The officer who investigated the accident testified that the defendant was “very drunk.” The arresting officer also testified that the defendant was weaving from one side of the road to the other while traveling at a speed “in excess of 100 miles an hour.”

The defendant contended that he did not know anything about what occurred after he drove into the highway. He testified that he was subject to epileptic seizures, but he did not say that he had a seizure before the accident. He simply did not remember what occurred. On the other hand, the testimony offered by the State is clear, and the jury obviously did not believe the testimony of the defendant. The jury is the judge of the weight and worth of the testimony, and since we find no reversible error in the record, we hold that the sentence and judgment of the trial court should be, and is hereby, affirmed.

Affirmed.

ETHRIDGE, C. J., and JONES, BRADY and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.1









Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




Wehereby consent to your disclosure of our audit report dated April 14, 2011 on the consolidated financial statements of China Teletech Limited as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 and for the years then ended, respectively, Form 10-K of China Teletech Limited.




For the purpose of the aforesaid Form 10-K, we also consent to the reference of our firm as"Experts" under the 'Experts' caption, which, in so far as applicable toour firm meansaccounting experts.







/s/ Samuel H. Wong & Co., LLPSan Mateo, California
Samuel H. Wong & Co., LLPApril 15, 2011
Certified Public Accountants
EXHIBIT 15.7


CONSENT OF REEDLEYTON CONSULTING


PO BOX 6071 Dural NSW Australia 2158





November 27, 2013





CONSENT OF EXPERT


VIA EDGAR


United States Securities and Exchange Commission





RE:           Tasman Metals Ltd. Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended August 31, 2013 (the “Annual Report”) and Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the Year Ended August 31, 2013 (the “2013 MD&A”).





To Whom It May Concern:





We refer to the following (collectively the “Reports”) all of which are referenced in the Annual Report, the 2013 MD&A, and/or documents incorporated by reference therein:





1.
The amended and restated technical report entitled “Amended and Restated Technical Report for Olserum REE Deposit, Southern Sweden” dated June 20, 2013, which we prepared (the “Olserum Report”).





We hereby consent to the use of our name and the Reports, and summaries thereof, and inclusion and incorporation by reference of thereof and information derived from such Reports in the Annual Report, the 2013 MD&A, and/or Tasman Metals Ltd.’s Registration Statement on Form F-3 (File No. 333-190863) filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.





Yours truly,





ReedLeyton Consulting








/s/ Geoffrey Reed


Signature





Geoffrey Reed


Print Name





Geology Consultant


Print Title
NO. 07-09-0002-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL C

	FEBRUARY 11, 2009

	______________________________

	DAVID BALLARD, ET AL., APPELLANTS

	V.

	DENNIS LEE HOLT, ET. AL., APPELLEES

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 31ST DISTRICT COURT OF WHEELER COUNTY;

	NO. 12,012; HONORABLE STEVE EMMERT, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Pending before this Court are two motions to dismiss this purported appeal filed by both Appellants and Appellees in which they maintain that Appellants failed to timely invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.  We grant Appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal.   Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).  Appellee’s motion is rendered moot.  

	Having dismissed the appeal at the request of Appellants, no opinion having been rendered, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

							Patrick A. Pirtle

							      Justice
EXHIBIT 99.6





CONSENT OF P. COWLEY




The undersigned hereby consents to reference to the undersigned’s name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 40-F being filed by Loncor Resources Inc. with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the technical information in the Registrant’s Management Discussion and Analysis for the period ended December 31, 2010, which include reference to the undersigned in connection with technical information relating to the properties described therein.




/s/ Peter CowleyName:
Peter Cowley, F.I.M.M.M.Title:
President & Chief Executive Officer,Loncor Resources Inc.










Date: April 28, 2011
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-24-00053-CV 

 

CAROLYN STRONG, APPELLANT 

V. 

CAROL BROOKS AND JOHN BROOKS, APPELLEES 

On Appeal from the 20th District Court 

Milam County, Texas 

Trial Court No. CV38,931, Honorable John Youngblood, Presiding 

May 22, 2024 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellant, Carolyn Strong, proceeding pro se, appeals from the final judgment 

entered by the trial court.1 Strong’s brief was due April 26, 2024, but was not filed. By 

letter of May 3, 2024, we notified Strong that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want 

of prosecution, without further notice, if a brief was not received by May 13. To date, 

Strong has neither filed a brief nor had any further communication with this Court.

1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the 

Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. 
2

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

Per Curiam
#### SANITARY LINEN SERVICE COMPANY a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. INDIAN RIVER UNIFORM RENTAL INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-733.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 31, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Lucie County; Wallace Sample, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
II 

Calendar No. 11 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1799 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 17 (legislative day, MARCH 16), 2021 

Received; read the first time 

MARCH 18, 2021 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT 

To amend the Small Business Act and the CARES Act 

to extend the covered period for the paycheck protection 

program, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘PPP Extension Act 

5 of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF COVERED PERIOD FOR PAYCHECK 

7 PROTECTION PROGRAM. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7(a)(36)(A)(iii) of the 

9 Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(36)(A)(iii)) is 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1799 PCS

1 amended by striking ‘‘March 31, 2021’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘June 30, 2021’’. 

3 (b) FUNDING.—Section 1102(b)(1) of the CARES 

4 Act (Public Law 116–136), as amended by section 323 

5 of the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Non6 profits, and Venues Act (Public Law 116–260), is amend7 ed by striking ‘‘March 31, 2021’’ and inserting ‘‘June 30, 

8 2021’’. 

9 (c) RESTRICTION.—From June 1, 2021, through 

10 June 30, 2021, the Administrator of the Small Business 

11 Administration shall not accept new lender applications 

12 for loans under paragraph (36) or (37) of section 7(a) 

13 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) and shall 

14 only process such lender applications that have been sub15 mitted to the Administrator before June 1, 2021. 

16 SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—The budgetary effects of this Act 

18 shall not be entered on either PAYGO scorecard main19 tained pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As20 You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(d)). 

21 (b) SENATE PAYGO SCORECARDS.—The budgetary 

22 effects of this Act shall not be entered on any PAYGO 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 1799 PCS

1 scorecard maintained for purposes of section 4106 of H. 

2 Con. Res. 71 (115th Congress). 

Passed the House of Representatives March 16, 

2021. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 11 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1799 

AN ACT 

To amend the Small Business Act and the CARES 

protection program, and for other purposes. Act to extend the covered period for the paycheck 

MARCH 18, 2021 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7644

WILLIAM W. WILKINS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, et al.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District

Judge. (CA-95-1360-AM)

Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William W. Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Wilkins v. Virginia Parole Board, No. CA-95-1360-AM (E.D.

Va. Sept. 28, 1995). 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 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  In connection with this amended Yearly Report of China Teletech Limited (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dong Liu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  1. Such Yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, 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 such Yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of China Teletech Limited.
  Date: October 13, 2011
By:
/s/ Dong LiuDong LiuPresident and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Robert Goynes, Appellant

No. 06-18-00143-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 297th District Court of 

Tarrant County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

1504114D). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Robert Goynes, has adequately indicated his inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 1, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29767]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board


Release of Waybill Data

    The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from 
Covington & Burling on behalf of Union Pacific Corporation (WB468-4--
10/28/97), for permission to use certain data from the Board's Carload 
Waybill Samples. A copy of the request may be obtained from the Office 
of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration.
    The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; 
therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file 
their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics, 
Environmental Analysis, and Administration within 14 calendar days of 
the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are 
codified at 49 CFR 1244.8.

    Contact: James A. Nash, (202) 565-1542.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29767 Filed 11-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
SWORCCPP-000009
SWORCCPP-000010
Redacted by the U.S. Department of 

the Treasury
 

 

SWORCCPP-000012
SWORCCPP-000013
SWORCCPP-000014