alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 5964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3172]



[[Page 5964]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Department 
of Energy, Los Alamos National Laboratory

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) notice is hereby given of the 
following Advisory Committee meeting: Environmental Management Site-
Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Los Alamos National Laboratory.

DATES: Tuesday, February 11, 1997: 6:30 p.m.-9:30 p.m., 8:00 p.m. to 
8:15 p.m. (public comment session).

ADDRESSES: Hotel Santa Fe, 1501 Paseo de Peralta, Santa Fe, New Mexico 
87501.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ann DuBois, Los Alamos National 
Laboratory Citizens' Advisory Board Support, Northern New Mexico 
Community College, 1002 Onate Street, Espanola, NM 87352, (800) 753-
8970, or (505) 753-8970, or (505) 262-1800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the 
Advisory Board is to make recommendations to DOE and its regulators in 
the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related 
activities.
    Tentative Agenda: Tuesday, February 11, 1997.

6:30 p.m. Call to Order and Welcome
7:00 p.m. Old Business
8:00 p.m. Public Comment
8:15 p.m. New Business--Wes McKinley, Foreman of the Rocky Flats 
Special Grand Jury
9:30 p.m. Adjourn

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the 
meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to 
agenda items should contact Ms. Ann DuBois, at (800) 753-8970. Requests 
must be received 5 days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision 
will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Designated 
Federal Official is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that 
will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. This notice is being 
published less than 15 days in advance of the meeting due to 
programmatic issues that needed to be resolved.
    Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 
1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 
DC 20585 between 9:00 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal 
holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to Herman Le-Doux, 
Department of Energy, Los Alamos Area Office, 528 35th Street, Los 
Alamos, NM 87185-5400.

    Issued at Washington, DC on February 4, 1997.
Rachel M. Samuel,
Acting Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-3172 Filed 2-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
#### Linda Lou CORSEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1567.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 24, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and W. C. McLain, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find the appellant has failed to demonstrate any reversible error, therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

The judgment and sentence of the court recites that appellant was sentenced to fifteen years in prison “at hard labor.” To be imprisoned “at hard labor” is improper because no existing Florida statute provides for imprisonment at hard labor as a sentence for any crime. *McDonald v. State,*321 So.2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

Remanded for striking the phrase “at hard labor” in the judgment and sentence; otherwise affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
#### Lester Lamon PAYTON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 50298.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 5, 1977.

Ben W. Thompson, Jr., Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court on Petition for Writ of Certiorari, jurisdictional briefs and portions of the record deemed necessary to reflect jurisdiction under Florida Appellate Rule 4.5c(6), and it appearing to the Court that it is without jurisdiction, it is ordered that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari be and the same is hereby denied.

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and KARL, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents with opinion.

HATCHETT, J., dissents and concurs with BOYD, J.

BOYD, Justice,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent to the majority decision to deny Payton’s petition for a writ of certiorari. I believe the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, reported at 336 So.2d 672, affirming the conviction of petitioner conflicts with *Chaffin v. State,*204 So.2d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); *Johnson v. State,*118 So.2d 806 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); *O’Bryan v. State,*324 So.2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) and *Hollis v. State,*27 Fla. 387, 9 So. 67 (1891). Those cases hold that appellate courts should reverse convictions for rape whenever the evidence is obviously insufficient to support conviction.

HATCHETT, J., concurs.
Exhibit 32  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 Western Massachusetts Electric Company (the registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Leon J. Olivier, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, and David R. McHale, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.    /s/Leon J. OlivierLeon J. OlivierChief Executive Officer    /s/David R. McHaleDavid R. McHaleExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer    Date:  August 7, 2009    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Joan CONKLIN, as widow of and as Administratrix of the Estate of the Deceased, Edward Donald Conklin, Appellant, v. Arthur COHEN et al., Appellees.

No. 71-847.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 13, 1974.

Feldman & Abramson, Miami, for appellant.

Preddy, Haddad, Kutner & Hardy; Richard M. Gale; Knight, Peters, Hoeveler, Pickle, Niemoeller & Flynn; Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Selwood and Steven R. Berger; Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blom-qvist & Davant, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on May 30, 1972 (262 So.2d 717) affirming the final judgment of the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its Revised Opinion and judgment filed December 5, 1973 (287 So.2d 56) and madate now lodged in this court, reversed in part, and affirmed in part this court’s judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings;

Now, therefore, It is ordered that this court’s mandate heretofore issued in this cause on June 15, 1972 is withdrawn, the judgment of this court filed in this cause on May 30, 1972, except as is affirmed by the judgment of the Supreme Court dated *82December 5, 1973, is vacated and the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court. The final judgment of dismissal appealed from herein is reversed in part and affirmed in part and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (Rule 3.16, subd. b, F.A.R. 32 F.S.A.).
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION

I, James W. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer of Colonial Commercial Corp.
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Colonial Commercial
Corp. (the "Registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 registrant 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 Registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly 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 quarterly report any change in the Registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant'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 Registrant'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 Registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.




Date: November 14, 2003
                                          /S/ JAMES W. STEWART
                                          --------------------
                                          James W. Stewart
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          Executive Vice President and Treasurer
IIB 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1917 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2021 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To modify eligibility requirements for certain hazard 

mitigation assistance programs, 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, 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1917 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hazard Eligibility and 

3 Local Projects Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO BEGIN IMPLEMENTATION OF AC5 QUISITION OR RELOCATION PROJECTS. 

6 (a) ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSISTANCE FOR INITIATED

7 PROJECTS.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

9 provision of law, an entity seeking assistance under 

10 a hazard mitigation assistance program shall be eli11 gible to receive such assistance for a covered project 

12 if the entity— 

13 (A) complies with all other eligibility re14 quirements of the hazard mitigation assistance 

15 program for acquisition or relocation projects, 

16 including extinguishing all incompatible encum17 brances; and 

18 (B) complies with all Federal requirements 

19 for the project. 

20 (2) COSTS INCURRED.—An entity seeking as21 sistance under a hazard mitigation assistance pro22 gram shall be responsible for any project costs in23 curred by the entity for a covered project if the cov24 ered project is not awarded, or is determined to be 

25 ineligible for, assistance. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 1917 RFS

1 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following defi2 nitions apply: 

3 (1) COVERED PROJECT.—The term ‘‘covered 

4 project’’ means— 

5 (A) an acquisition or relocation project for 

6 which an entity began implementation prior to 

7 grant award under a hazard mitigation assist8 ance program; and 

9 (B) a project for which an entity initiated 

10 planning or construction before or after re11 questing assistance for the project under a haz12 ard mitigation assistance program qualifying 

13 for a categorical exemption under the National 

14 Environmental Policy Act. 

15 (2) HAZARD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE PRO16 GRAM.—The term ‘‘hazard mitigation assistance 

17 program’’ means— 

18 (A) the predisaster hazard mitigation 

19 grant program authorized under section 203 of 

20 the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

21 Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5133); 

22 (B) the hazard mitigation grant program 

23 authorized under section 404 of the Robert T. 

24 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assist25 ance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c); and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 1917 RFS

1 (C) the flood mitigation assistance pro2 gram authorized under section 1366 of the Na3 tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

4 4104c). 

5 (c) APPLICABILITY.—This section shall apply to 

6 funds appropriated on or after the date of enactment of 

7 this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 4, 

2021. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
SCPW-20-0000583

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

GREGORIO NGIRAIWET; MAYA V. IRIONDO SIMEK; and

NATHAN PLOESSER, on behalf of themselves and all other

similarly-situated individuals, Petitioners,

vs.

DAVID Y. IGE, Governor, State of Hawai‘i and

ANNE E. PERREIRA-EUSTAQUIO, Director, Department of Labor and

Industrial Relations, State of Hawai‘i, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, and Wilson, JJ.,

Circuit Judge Castagnetti, in place of McKenna J., recused, and

Circuit Judge Browning, in place of Circuit Judge Nakamoto, recused)

Upon consideration of petitioners’ petition for

extraordinary writ, filed on September 28, 2020, the documents

and additional declarations submitted in support thereof, and the

record, it appears that the petition is seeking extraordinary

relief regarding the processing of unemployment claims and the

disbursement of unemployment benefits. Extraordinary relief is a

narrow remedy confined to limited situations in which there is a

clear and indisputable right to relief, and when, with respect to

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-20-0000583

29-OCT-2020

11:04 AM

Dkt. 39 ODDP
an agency’s duty, there is no room for discretionary action. See

Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a

writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue

unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right

to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately

the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action); Barnett v.

Broderick, 84 Hawai#i 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996) (with

respect to a public official, mandamus relief is available to

compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an

individual only if the individual’s claim is clear and certain,

the official’s duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as

to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is available); Salling

v. Moon, 76 Hawai#i 273, 274 n.3, 874 P.2d 1098, 1099 n.3 (1994)

(“A duty is ministerial where the law prescribes and defines the

duty to be performed with such precision and certainty as to

leave nothing to the exercise of discretion and judgment.”). 

Petitioners contend that respondents are not processing

unemployment claims and disbursing unemployment benefits promptly

to meet the demand of unemployed citizens of Hawai#i in violation

of HAR § 12-5-89(c) and (e). Accepting these contentions as

true, and based on the standard by which petitions for

extraordinary writs are reviewed, it cannot be said that

respondents have ignored or refused to undertake an obligation

that is so clear beyond dispute as to warrant this court’s

2
intervention in the agency’s process. In addition, it cannot be

said that petitioners lack alternative means to seek relief. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for

extraordinary writ is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 29, 2020. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Jeannette H. Castagnetti 

/s/ R. Mark Browning

3
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 1st QUARTER 2010

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 3-MO 6-MO 12-MO

4-WEEK AND 12/31 1/4 1/7 18.00 27.00 27.00 84.00 -12.00

3&6&12 MO BILLS 1/7 1/11 1/14 19.00 28.00 28.00 27.00 104.00 -2.00

1/14 1/19 1/21 20.00 29.00 28.00 79.00 -2.00

1/21 1/25 1/28 22.00 29.00 29.00 78.00 2.00

1/28 2/1 2/4 24.00 30.00 30.00 78.00 6.00

2/4 2/8 2/11 26.00 30.00 30.00 27.00 101.00 12.00

2/11 2/16 2/18 28.00 30.00 30.00 77.00 11.00

2/18 2/22 2/25 28.00 31.00 31.00 79.00 11.00

2/25 3/1 3/4 28.00 31.00 31.00 80.00 10.00

3/4 3/8 3/11 26.00 31.00 31.00 27.00 106.00 9.00

3/11 3/15 3/18 24.00 30.00 31.00 84.00 1.00

3/18 3/22 3/25 22.00 30.00 30.00 84.00 -2.00

1078.00 1034.00 44.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

63-DAY BILL 1/12 1/14 30.00 30.00 0.00

Matures 3/18

70-DAY BILL 2/16 2/18 15.00 15.00 0.00

Matures 4/29/10

20-DAY BILL 2/23 2/25 40.00 40.00 0.00

Matures 3/17

CMB Funds: 0.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

IN SIZE

10-year TIPS 1/7 1/11 1/15 11.00 3.00

3-year Note 1/7 1/12 1/15 40.00 0.00

10-year Note ® 1/7 1/13 1/15 21.00 0.00

30 year Bond ® 30-year Bond ® 1/7 1/14 1/15 1/7 1/14 1/15 13.00 0.00 26.3 13 00 0 00 26 32 58 68.

30-year TIPS 1/21 1/25 1/29 9.00 9.00

2-year Note 1/21 1/26 2/1 45.00 .gov/new.items/d09932.pdf

5-year Note 1/21 1/27 2/1 42.00 0.00

7-year Note 1/21 1/28 2/1 32.00 0.00 25.00 103.00

3-year Note 2/3 2/9 2/16 40.00 0.00

10-year Note 2/3 2/10 2/16 24.00 0.00

30-year Bond 2/3 2/11 2/16 16.00 0.00 48.34 31.66

2-year Note 2/18 2/23 3/1 45.00 0.00

5-year Note 2/18 2/24 3/1 42.00 0.00

7-year Note 2/18 2/25 3/1 32.00 0.00 26.00 93.00

3-year Note 3/4 3/9 3/15 40.00 0.00

10-year Note ® 3/4 3/10 3/15 21.00 0.00

30-year Note ® 3/4 3/11 3/15 13.00 0.00 14.13 59.87

2-year Note 3/18 3/23 3/31 45.00 0.00

5-year Note 3/18 3/24 3/31 42.00 0.00

7-year Note 3/18 3/25 3/31 32.00 0.00 28.00 91.00

605.00 167.79 437.21

Estimates are italicized. R = Reopening

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 481.21
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2275 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2275

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 
    exclusion from gross income of discharge of qualified principal 
                        residence indebtedness.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2021

 Ms. Brownley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 
    exclusion from gross income of discharge of qualified principal 
                        residence indebtedness.

    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 ``Mortgage Debt Tax Forgiveness Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF DISCHARGE 
              OF QUALIFIED PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE INDEBTEDNESS.

    (a) In General.--Section 108(a)(1)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking ``which is discharged'' and all that 
follows and inserting a period.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to indebtedness discharged after December 31, 2025.
                                 <all>
```
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 provided the U.S. Department of the Treasury $9 billion for the 

Emergency Capital Investment Program (ECIP) to provide direct investments into Community Development 

Financial Institution (CDFI) and Minority Depository Institution (MDI) banks, credit unions and holding companies. 

These investments are designed to support the efforts of community financial institutions to, among other things, 

provide loans, grants, and forbearance for small and minority-owned businesses and consumers, especially in lowincome and financially underserved communities that struggled the most during the COVID-19 crisis.

These mission-driven financial institutions specialize in delivering responsible capital, credit and financial services 

to underserved communities. The investments made by Treasury are expected to be used for a range of 

community investments, including loans to low-income and minority borrowers and underserved small business, 

the development and preservation of affordable housing, and investments in community development projects.

Emergency Capital Investment Program Fact Sheet

Oklahoma

 

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/emergency-capital-investment-program

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email ecip@treasury.gov for additional information

Treasury has awarded institutions headquartered within Oklahoma over

$163 million in ECIP investment funds. 

Institution Headquarters City Type Award Amount 

Arbuckle Federal Credit Union Ada CDFI $ 371,000 

Carson Financial Holding Company, Inc. Stilwell MDI $ 2,800,000 

First Antlers Bancorporation, Inc. Antlers MDI $ 23,047,000 

First National Bank and Trust Company Shawnee MDI $ 25,000,000 

FSB Bancshares, Inc. Oklahoma City MDI $ 15,354,000 

Grandview Bankshares, Inc. Hulbert MDI $ 36,579,000 

Security Bancshares Corporation Wewoka CDFI $ 60,017,000 

Note: Headquarters City indicates institution headquarters location only. Institution's lending activity may go beyond identified city.