alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503

THE DIRECTOR 

### January 21, 2015

M-15-05 MEMORANDUM FORT FROM:
SUBJECT: 2015 Discount Rates for OMB Circular No. A-94
On October 29, 1992, OMB issued a revision to OMB Circular No. A-94, "Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis ofFederal Programs." The revision established new discount rate guidelines for use in benefit-cost and other types ofeconomic analysis. The revised Circular specifies certain discount rates that will be updated ai:mually when the interest rate and inflation assumptions in the budget are changed. These discount rates are found 

### in Appendix C ofthe revised Circular. The attachment to this memorandum is an update ofAppendix C. It

### provides discount rates that will be in effect for the calendar year 2015. The rates presented in Appendix C do not apply to regulatory analysis or benefit-cost analysis ofpublic investment. They are to be used for lease-purchase and cost-effectiveness analysis, as specified in the Circular.
AttachmentOMB Circular No. A-94 

### APPENDIXC (Revised December 2014) 

### DISCOUNT RATES FOR COST-EFFECTIVENESS, LEASE PURCHASE, AND RELATED ANALYSES Effective Dates. This appendix is updated annually. This version ofthe appendix is valid for calendar year 2015. A copy ofthe updated appendix can be obtained in electronic form through the OMB home page at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars a094/a94 appx-c/. The text ofthe Circular is found athttp://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars a094/, and atable ofpastyears' rates is located at http://www.whitehouse.gov

### Isites/default/files/omb/assets/a94/dischist.pdf. Updates of the appendix are also available upon request from OMB's Office ofEconomic Policy (202-395­ 3316). 

### Nominal Discount Rates. A forecast ofnominal or market interest rates for calendar year 2015 based onthe economic assumptions for the 2016 Budgetis presentedbelow. These nominal rates are to be used for discounting nominal flows, which are often encountered in lease-purchase analysis.


### Nominal Interest Rates on Treasury Notes and Bonds ofSpecified Maturities (in percent) 3-Year 5-Year 7-Year 10-Year 20-Year 30-Year



### 1.7 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4


### Real Discount Rates. A forecast ofreal interest rates from which the inflation premium has been removed and based on the economic assumptions from the 2016 Budget is presented below. These real rates are to be used for discounting constant-dollar flows, as is often required in costeffectiveness analysis.


### Real Interest Rates on Treasury Notes and Bonds of Specified Maturities (in percent) 3-Year 5-Year 7-Year 10-Year 20-Year 30-Year

0.1 0.4 0.7 0.9 

### 1.2 1.4 Analyses ofprograms withterms differentfrom thosepresented abovemayuse a linearinterpolation. For example, a four-year project can be evaluated with a rate equal to the average ofthe three-year and five-year rates. Programs with durations longer than 30 years mayuse the 30-year interestrate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                     3,052
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,052
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,052
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,716
<OTHER-SE>                                         336
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,052
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2247 

To require in-State tuition rates for qualifying foster youth. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2021 

Mr. POCAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To require in-State tuition rates for qualifying foster youth. 

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 ‘‘John Lewis Foster 

5 Youth Tuition Fairness Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. IN-STATE TUITION RATES FOR QUALIFYING FOSTER 

7 YOUTH. 

8 Section 477(b)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 677(b)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the 

10 following: 

11 ‘‘(L) A certification by the chief executive 

12 officer of the State that the State will not 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2247 IH

1 charge youths eligible for services under the 

2 State program of any State under this section 

3 tuition for attendance at a public institution of 

4 higher education (as defined in section 101 of 

5 the Higher Education Act of 1965) or a post6 secondary vocational institution (as defined in 

7 section 102(c) of such Act) in the State at a 

8 rate that is greater than the rate charged for 

9 residents of the State for such attendance.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In  connection  with the  Annual  Report of GLOBAL GSM SOLUTIONS, INC. (the "Company")  on Form 10-K for the period  ended January 31,  2011 as filed with the Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



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 Company.



Date: March 25, 2011





/s/ Gennady Fedosov

__________________________

Gennady Fedosov, President,

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MEMS USA, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), James A. Latty and
Richard W. York, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, respectively, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to their
knowledge:

         (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 Company.

August 15, 2005

/s/
--------------------------------
James A. Latty,
Chief Executive Officer


August 15, 2005

/s/
--------------------------------
Richard W. York,
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit (f)(i)

**RETIREMENT AGREEMENT**

[Chicago Board Form]

This Retirement Agreement (“Agreement”), dated as of November 14, 2007, is made by and between [            ] (“Independent Director”) and each of the DWS Scudder Funds listed in Schedule A attached hereto (“Funds”).

WHEREAS, the Independent Director has served as an independent trustee or director of certain of the Funds for a significant number of years;

WHEREAS, in accepting this position, the Independent Director has reserved time in his or her schedule of commitments sufficient to meet the requirements of such service and, accordingly, has forgone or not pursued other opportunities for compensated service;

WHEREAS, the Board of each of the Funds has concluded that it would be desirable and in the best interests of the Fund to create a unified board structure where the board members of  the Funds and those of other DWS Scudder Funds would be primarily the same individuals (the “Consolidated Board”);

WHEREAS, pursuant to a Plan of Consolidation adopted by the Board of each Fund, the effective date for the Consolidated Board is expected to be April 1, 2008 (the “Consolidation Date”);

WHEREAS, the Board of each of the open-end Funds has called a special meeting of shareholders to, among other items, elect the slate of nominees that will constitute the Consolidated Board;

WHEREAS, the Board of each of the closed-end funds contemplates holding an annual meeting of shareholders in May 2008 to, among other items, elect the slate of nominees that will constitute the Consolidated Board.

WHEREAS, in order to facilitate the nomination of the Consolidated Board, the Independent Director has agreed to not stand for re-election as a trustee or director of the Funds in connection with the shareholder election of the Consolidated Board and/or to retire from the Board of each closed-end Fund as of the Consolidation Date;

WHEREAS, unlike other fund complexes, the Funds have not adopted plans providing for any retirement or pension benefit for their trustees or directors;

WHEREAS, the Board of each of the Funds has determined that in consideration of the Independent Director’s agreement to not stand for re-election as a trustee or director of the Funds and/or to retire prior to the normal retirement date specified in the Fund’s current Governance Procedures and Guidelines, his or her past service to the Funds, and the other covenants contained herein, it is desirable and appropriate in the circumstances to provide a one-time retirement benefit to the Independent Director; and

 

----
Exhibit 32.1.2



Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Joan S. Freilich, the Chief Financial Officer of Consolidated Edison, Inc. (the Company) certify that the Companys
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, which this statement accompanies, (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/    JOAN S. FREILICHJoan S. Freilich




Dated: August 5, 2004
#### Frank DeLUCA, Appellant, v. I. M. MATHEWS et al., Appellees.

No. 75-2140.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 25, 1977.

On Rehearing May 13, 1977.

Arthur J. Morburger of Weinstein & Bavly, P. A., Miami, for appellant.

Janis M. Halker of Gurney, Gurney & Handley, P. A., Orlando, for appellees, I. M. Mathews and Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co.

Bruce S. Bullock and Robert M. Sharp of Bullock, Sharp & Childs, P. A., Jacksonville, for appellees Boudet and Employers’ Fire Ins. Co.

Edna L. Caruso of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D’Aiuto & Dean, West Palm Beach, for appellees Kennedy and St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the briefs and oral argument and after due consideration of the record on appeal we are of the opinion that a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to the applicability of the statute of limitations, particularly, when notice was acquired so as to commence the running of the limitation period. *Schetter v. Jordan,*294 So.2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); *Nardone v. Reynolds,*333 So.2d 25 (Fla. 1976); *Salvaggio v. Austin,*336 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Accordingly, the summary judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

MAGER, C. J., ALDERMAN, J., and STETTIN, HERBERT, Associate Judge, concur.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

On petition for rehearing, we conclude, in reference to Appellees-I. M. Mathews and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, that no genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to the applicability of the statute of limitation and that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in their favor. Therefore, our prior opinion is modified and we affirm the summary judgment in favor of Mathews and Hartford. As to all other parties the summary judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

MAGER, C. J., ALDERMAN, J., and STETTIN, HERBERT, Associate Judge, concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1

UNITED MARITIME GROUP, LLC

Certificate of the Chief Executive Officer

I, Steven Green certify, that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of United Maritime Group, LLC;

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

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

4. The registrants other certifying
officer 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 report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over the 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.



UNITED MARITIME GROUP, LLCBy:

/s/ Steven GreenSteven GreenChief Executive Officer
(duly authorized signatory and principal
executive officer of the Company)Date: March 30, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,315
<SECURITIES>                                    26,700
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,517
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     55,487
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               119,381
<PP&E>                                          78,798
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 221,046
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,648
<BONDS>                                         87,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,597
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   221,046
<SALES>                                         61,083
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,729
<CGS>                                           42,842
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,842
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,217
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,983
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,620
<INCOME-TAX>                                       607
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,013
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,013
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Martin GARCIA-VILLEGAS, aka Martin Villagas-Garcia, aka Aurelio Nava-Fernandez, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-10630.

D.C. No. CR-00-01171-JAT.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002 *.

Decided Aug. 16, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Martin Garcia-Villegas appeals his conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) with a sentencing enhancement pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2).

Garcia-Villegas’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493*270(1967), and has moved to withdraw as counsel of record.

Because our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83-84, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), indicates that the plea agreement, including the waiver of the right to appeal, was entered knowingly and voluntarily, *United States v. Aguilar-Muniz,*156 F.3d 974, 976 (9th Cir.1998), we enforce the waiver, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal. Garcia-Villegas’s request for substitution of counsel is denied.

DISMISSED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                              This  schedule   contains  summary   financial
                              information extracted from the Condensed
                              Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2000
                              and the Condensed Consolidated Statement of
                              Losses  for the six months  ended  June 30, 2000
                              on pages 3 through 6 of the Company's  Quarterly
                              Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended
                              June 30, 2000, and is qualified in it's entirety
                              by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                   <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      3,608
<SECURITIES>                                  409
<RECEIVABLES>                                 302
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            4,373
<PP&E>                                      3,850
<DEPRECIATION>                                796
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              9,864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         499
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     5
<COMMON>                                    3,900
<OTHER-SE>                                  3,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                9,864
<SALES>                                     1,078
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,142
<CGS>                                       1,305
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1,305
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              617
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (43)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (686)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (691)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (691)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.12)




</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0037

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DALE STEVEN MARTELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 16, 2020, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 9 2020

11/09/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0037