alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Treasury approves Ohio’s plan to invest $10 million of CPF funding in 

broadband infrastructure projects that will provide high-quality internet to 

locations that lack access to adequate service.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

Ohio

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

 Program Summary: $10 million for Broadband Infrastructure (4% of CPF allocation)

 Program Description: The Ohio Broadband Line Extension Customer Assistance Program is a 

competitive grant program that provides funding to internet service providers (ISPs) to 

address the needs of individuals who are located near infrastructure for high-quality 

broadband service but where the cost of the last mile connection is a barrier. 

‒ This program is designed to provide internet service with speeds of 100/100 Mbps upon 

project completion.

‒ Internet service providers utilizing investments funded by CPF will be required to 

participate in the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) – a $30 per month subsidy 

for low-income families. 

 Key State Contact: Broadband Ohio, the state broadband office within the Ohio Department 

of Development 

Ohio’s Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

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

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information
# DATA
Exención de documentación‐Programa de Asistencia de Alquiler de Emergencia del Condado de Brazoria (ERAP)

La documentación requerida para la solicitud del ERAP no es factible para mi obtener o proporcionar debido a las siguientes

circunstancias atenuantes relacionadas con: (i) la pandemia, (ii) una discapacidad o (iii) la falta de acceso a la tecnología. He

marcado la casilla de la categoría aplicable de documentación que no puedo proporcionar y he completado la información

relacionada y las descripciones en los campos a continuación en lugar de la documentación:

Ingreso total del hogar:

Por favor, enumere todas las fuentes de ingresos que no puede documentar (si no hay ingresos para el miembro del hogar, por

favor enumere el nombre y escriba “ninguno”):

Nombre del

miembro del

hogar

Nombre del

empleador

Numero de

teléfono del

empleador

Correo   

electrónico   

del empleador

Actualidad Salario

bruto semanal

 

Descripción de por qué la documentación no está disponible:

Contrato de arrendamiento firmado:

Nombre del propietario

Correo electrónico del

propietario

Teléfono del propietario

Alquiler mensual

Fecha de inicio del contrato

de arrendamiento

Descripción de por qué la documentación no está disponible:

Por favor, también cargue el comprobante de pagos regulares al propietario o administrador de la propiedad dentro de los

últimos dos años y el correo oficial enviado a su dirección para verificar la residencia.
Sírvase describir cuando comenzó el desempleo y por qué no se dispone de documentación. Por favor, proporcione el nombre

y la información de contacto de su empleador anterior.

Por favor describa la reducción en los ingresos, incluyendo el nombre del miembro del hogar, el nombre del empleador y

la información de contacto, y por qué la documentación no está disponible. Por favor, incluya la (s) fecha (s) en que se

produjo la reducción de ingresos.

Nombre del    

miembro del hogar

Nombre del

empleador

Número de

teléfono del

empleador

Correo

electrónico del

empleador

     Actualidad

Salario bruto

semanal

 

Descripción de lo que fue la reducción de la paga, cuando se produjo y por qué la documentación no está disponible:

Doy fe de que las afirmaciones anteriores son correctas y completas.

 

Firma del solicitante Nombre del solicitante Fecha

Reducción de los ingresos

Elegibilidad para el desempleo
#### Aquilino HORJALES, Appellant, v. Jan Gilbert LOEB et al., Appellees.

No. 73-405.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 26, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1974.

*93Michael M. Tobin and Richard H. W. Maloy, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Selwood and Steven R. Berger, Horton & Perse and Arnold Ginsberg, Hawkesworth, Kay & Schmick, Fowler, White, Humkey, Burnett, Hurley & Banick, Miami, for appel-lees.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PEARSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final summary judgment for the defendants. The single point presented: “Whether the lower court erred in rendering a summary judgment in favor of the defendants based upon a determination of an issue of fact, to wit: Whether the plaintiff and the defendant Martinez colluded”.

The point presented has two aspects. First, did the facts before the court warrant a finding of collusion. Second, does the court have the right to dismiss a cause with prejudice when collusion appears between the plaintiff and a principal defendant. We answer both questions in the affirmative.

The court’s finding that the plaintiff was guilty of collusion with the defendant Martinez was based upon the fact that the plaintiff admitted that he had given sworn testimony material to the issue of liability in another court proceeding, which testimony was exactly contrary to his sworn testimony in the instant cause. The present defendant was defendant in the prior case and the testimony as changed would make possible the collection upon an insurance liability policy. In the absence of explanation which was not offered, it would appear that the plaintiff was guilty of perjury in one of the cases. In view of the admissions of the plaintiff and the claimed basis for liability of the defendants, we hold that the record supports the court’s finding.

Under these circumstances, the trial court had the right to dismiss the plaintiff’s case. One who engages in a fraudulent scheme forfeits all right to the prosecution of a law suit. See Ashwood v. Patterson, Fla.1951, 49 So.2d 848; Kansas City Operating Corporation v. Durwood, 278 F.2d 354 (8th Cir.1960). We think that the facts established collusion as a basis for the suit.

Affirmed.
#### Farrell D. FUGETT and Suzanne Guthrie, Appellants, v. B. J. DRIVER, Chief Judge, Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida, Appellee.

No. 42229.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 27, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000880416
<NAME>NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                              PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                  612,555
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                 36,975
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                      92,965
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                   184,181
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             926,676
<COMMON>                                         1
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                  160,999
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                         19,657
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>             180,657
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                       405,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                        0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                   0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>               70,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                        0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>             271,019
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>              926,676
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                   70,289
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                         4,877
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  49,107
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  57,814
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                     12,475
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                            (238)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>              16,067
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     9,606
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,461
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                6,461
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    30,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                      57,110
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.00
        





</TABLE>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 10

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900

Seattle, WA 98101-3140

December 17, 2013

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Final Review: Chapter 173-476 Washington Administrative Code (WAC)

Ambient Air Quality Standards

FROM: Jeff Hunt, Air Quality Planner

TO: Debra Suzuki, Unit Manager

Air Programs Unit

In a letter dated August 23, 2013, from Kate Kelly, Director of the EPA Region 10 Office of Air,

Waste, and Toxics, the EPA stated:

We have reviewed the draft version of "Chapter 173-476 WAC Ambient Air

Quality Standards" to identify potential deficiencies prior to final submission of

the regulation for EPA approval. When compared to the current Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) National Ambient Air Quality Standards, we have

concluded that the draft version sent to the EPA on July 3, 2013, would likely be

approvable into the Washington State Implementation Plan pending one minor

change discussed on page 10 of the attached supporting memorandum. As

discussed with your staff, the EPA intends to formally comment on this issue

during the state public comment period.

On December 11, 2013, the EPA received a final version of the State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the Department of Ecology (Ecology). I reviewed the final version to

ensure that Ecology incorporated the change to the sulfur oxides standard rounding convention

we identified during the state public comment period. Ecology's final version is now identical to

the EPA's 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide. I also

reviewed the other comments received during the state public comment period and agree with

Ecology's determination that they are not germane to this rulemaking. I recommend publishing

a proposed approval based on the sample Federal Register notice drafted as part of the EPA's

August review as a `fast track' action because this noncontroversial action incorporates existing

federal NAAQS.

orrica 0

AIR. WASTE. AND TOXICS
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
     I, James E. Hausman, Senior Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of CT Communications, Inc., certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CTCommunications, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;
     (b) [Intentionally omitted]
     (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
     (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: August 4, 2004   By: /s/ James E. Hausman  James E. Hausman Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
1

CORONAVIRUS LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUND: 

NONENTITLEMENT UNIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHECKLIST FOR REQUESTING INITIAL PAYMENT 

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) appropriates $19.53 billion to States for distribution to tens 

of thousands of nonentitlement units of local government (NEUs), which are local governments typically 

serving a population under 50,000. The ARPA directs the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to make 

payments to each State for distribution to NEUs within the State. Treasury has published additional

guidance around the distribution process to NEUs.

Once payment from Treasury has been received, states will have 30 days to disburse payments to NEUs 

unless an extension is requested. States will issue further instructions on how NEUs can request their first 

distribution from the state. As this allocation and distribution process moves forward, NEUs with 

questions about the payment process should consult their state government.

Preparing to Request Funding 

There are a few steps you can take now to prepare to request funding from your state, including:

✓ Obtain or confirm your local government’s valid DUNS number 

✓ Gather your local government’s payment information:

o Local government name, Entity’s Taxpayer Identification Number, DUNS number, and 

address

o Authorized representative name, title, and email

o Contact person name, title, phone, and email

o Financial institution information (e.g., routing and account number, financial institution 

name and contact information)

✓ Confirm your local government’s top-line budget total (defined as your local government’s total 

annual operating budget, including the general fund and other funds, in effect as of January 27, 

2020) 

✓ Review award terms and conditions agreement (as provided by Treasury to be signed)

✓ Review assurances of compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as provided by 

Treasury to be signed)

Requesting Funding 

Please follow your state’s instructions on how to request funding through the state. Please have the 

above information ready. An authorized representative should also be ready to sign documents, 

including:

✓ Award terms and conditions agreement

✓ Assurances of compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

After Requesting Funding
2

After submitting your request for funding to your state, please retain the documents and information 

above for your first report. Additional reporting instructions should be forthcoming. If your local 

government is not registered in SAM.gov, please do so as soon as possible after receiving the award.

You will be asked for the following information in your first report to Treasury, among others:

✓ NEU Recipient Number (a unique identification code for each NEU assigned by the state to the 

NEU as part of the request for funding)

✓ Copy of signed award terms and conditions agreement

✓ Copy of signed assurances of compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

✓ Copy of actual budget documents validating the top-line budget total provided to the state as 

part of the request for funding
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

HENRY PRATT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 198 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

HENRY PRATT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 199 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of October, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2010 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH Equipment Trust 2010-A, does hereby certify that:

 

1.             NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.             The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture Trustee.

 

3.             This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.             A review of the Servicer’s activities during the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2011 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.             To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the 12 month period ending (and including) December 31, 2011.

 

6.             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 29th day of March 2012.

 
| March 29,   2012 |   |                    |
|-----------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                  |   |                    |
|                  |   |                    |
|                  | By:    | /s/   Steven C. Bierman |
|                  | Name:  | Steven   C. Bierman     |
|                  | Title: | President               |

 

----
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 4th QUARTER 2007

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 3-MO 6-MO

4-WEEK AND 9/27 10/1 10/4 10.00 16.00 15.00 41.00 0.00

3&6 MONTH BILLS 10/4 10/9 10/11 10.00 16.00 15.00 37.00 4.00

10/11 10/15 10/18 12.00 16.00 15.00 36.00 7.00

10/18 10/22 10/25 18.00 16.00 15.00 38.00 11.00

10/25 10/29 11/1 21.00 16.00 15.00 37.00 15.00

11/1 11/5 11/8 21.00 16.00 15.00 38.00 14.00

11/8 11/12 11/15 25.00 17.00 16.00 41.00 17.00

11/15 11/19 11/21 27.00 17.00 16.00 49.00 11.00

11/21 11/26 11/29 27.00 17.00 16.00 53.00 7.00

11/29 12/3 12/6 18.00 17.00 16.00 53.00 -2.00

12/6 12/10 12/13 14.00 16.00 15.00 56.00 -11.00

12/13 12/17 12/20 11.00 16.00 15.00 57.00 -15.00

12/20 12/24 12/27 11.00 16.00 15.00 56.00 -14.00

636.00 592.00 44.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

19-DAY BILL 11/27 11/28 20.00 20.00 0.00

Matures 12/17

11-DAY BILL 12/5 12/6 10.00 10.00 0.00

Matures 12/17

0.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

IN SIZE

10-Year TIPS ® 10/9 10/11 10/15 6.00 6.00

5-Year TIPS ® 10/18 10/23 10/31 6.00

2-Year Note 10/22 10/24 10/31 18.00

5-Year Note 10/22 10/25 10/31 13.00 19.00 18.00

10-Year Note 10/31 11/7 11/15 13.00

30-Year Bond ® 10/31 11/8 11/15 5.00 51.50 -33.50

2-Year Note 11/26 11/27 11/30 18.00

5-year Note 11/26 11/28 11/30 13.00 19.20 11.80

10-Year Note® 12/10 12/13 12/17 8.00 8.00

2-Year Note 12/20 12/26 1/2* 18.00

5-year Note 12/20 12/27 1/2* 13.00 19.50 11.50

131.00 109.40 21.60

Estimates are italicized

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 65.60

R = Reopening

* The December two and five-year note auctions settle on January 2. As a result, that borrowing is counted as part of the January-March 

2008 quarter's net cash raised. The September two and five-year auctions settled in October and thereby are part of this quarter's cash flow.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 15 22

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Kev in Fern an de z ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v. St at e o f North Dako ta ; No rth Dako taDepa rtment o f Co rrec ti on s an d Reh ab il it at io n; Lean n K. Ber ts ch ; Dep ut y W ard en Bran so n; Uni t M an ag er Co nwa y ; Dep ut y

W ard en Fo st er; Sen io r Co rrec ti on al Offic er Ro ss ; Warde n Sch m al enbe rg er; Co rrec ti on al Cas ewo rk er Sc hwe re ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Dis tri ctof No rth Dako ta- Bi sm arck

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Sep te m

be r 8, 2 01 5 Fi le d: Sep te m

be r 9, 2 01 5 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, SMITH, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.In m at e Kev in Fern an de z ap pe al s th e di st ric t co urt’s ad ve rs e gr an t of su m m ary 1 jud gm en t in hi s 42 U .S.C. § 19 83 act io n. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 2 9 1, th is co urt ha s co nduc te d de no vo rev ie w of th e reco rd , se e Mur ch is o n v . Rog er s , 77 9 F.3 d 88 2, 88 6- 87 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ), a nd ha s care fu ll y co ns id ered Fern an de z’s arg um en ts for rev ers al

. The jud gm en t i s af

firm ed

. Se e 8th C ir. R . 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Dan ie l L. Hov la nd , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Judg e fo r the Dis tri ct 1 of North Dak ot a, ad op ti ng th e rep ort an d reco m m en da ti on s of th e Hon or ab le Ch arl es S. Mi ll er, J r., Uni te d S ta te s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ctof No rth Dako ta
. -2

-
#### Anna Mae MORGAN, Appellant, v. AMERICAN BANK OF SARASOTA, a Florida banking corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-508.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 10, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.