alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFF1CE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS • 1500 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N W. WASHINGTON, DC. • 202200

FOR RELEASE AT 3 PM July 29,1996 Contact:Jon Murchinson (202) 622-2960

TREASURY ANNOUNCES MARKET BORROWING ESTIMATES

The Treasury Department announced on Monday that its net market 

borrowing for the July - September 1996 quarter is estimated to be $45 billion, 

with a cash balance of $40 billion on September 30. The Treasury also announced 

that its net market borrowing for the October - December 1996 quarter is estimated 

to be in the range of $50 billion to$55 billion, with a cash balance of $30 billion on 

December 31, 1996.

In the quarterly announcement of its borrowing needs on April 29, 

1996, Treasury estimated net market borrowing for the July - September 

quarter to be in a range of $55 billion to $60 billion, assuming a $40 billion 

cash balance on September 30.

Actual net market borrowing in the April - June quarter was a pay down of

$25.7 billion, while the end-of-quarter cash balance was $38 billion. On April 29, 

Treasury estimated net market borrowing for the April - June quarter to be a pay 

down of $20 billion, with a $35 billion cash balance on June 30. The improvement 

was primarily the result of higher than estimated receipts.

The regular quarterly refunding press conference will be held at 

1 p.m. on Wednesday, July 31, 1996.

RR-1200
For press releases, speeches, public schedules and official biographies, call our 24-hour fax line at 

(202) 622-2040
#### Festus Olakunle AJETUNMOBI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondents.

No. 02-1721.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 27, 2002.

Filed Aug. 30, 2002.

Before WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Festus Olakunle Ajetunmobi, a Nigerian citizen and lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which summarily affirmed the Immigration Judge’s determination that Mr. Ajetunmobi was removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii)) for having been convicted of two separate crimes involving moral turpitude, and under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)) for having been convicted, of an aggravated felony as defined in INA § 101(a)(43)(F) (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F)). We deny the petition.

Mr. Ajetunmobi argues that INA § 212(h) (8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)), which prevented him from receiving a waiver of inadmissibility, violates equal protection by treating illegal aliens better than LPRs. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (no waiver of inadmissibility shall be granted to LPR who has been convicted of aggravated felony since admission). Although 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) states that “[n]o court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision of the Attorney General to grant or deny a waiver [of inadmissibility],” Mr. Ajetunmobi’s equal-protection challenge is reviewable, *see Vasquez-Velezmoro v. INS,*281 F.3d 693, 695-96 (8th Cir.2002) (despite § 1182(h)’s jurisdiction-stripping language, this court has jurisdiction to consider substantial constitutional challenges to INA). *73The equal-protection challenge, however, is foreclosed. *See Lukowski v. INS,*279 F.3d 644, 647-48 (8th Cir.2002) (“ § 1182(h) easily passes equal protection muster”; Congress does not violate equal protection merely because classifications it makes are imperfect or result in some inequality).

The other issues Mr. Ajetunmobi seeks to raise either exceed the scope of this court’s jurisdiction to review directly a BIA determination, or lack merit, and some are duplicative of claims he has pending in a habeas corpus action.

Accordingly, we deny the petition.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1734

WESLEY EDWARD SMITH, III,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHARLESTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(2:06-cv-02177-DCN)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 25, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wesley Edward Smith, III, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Francis

Blanchard, III, Alice F. Paylor, ROSEN, ROSEN & HAGOOD, LLC,

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wesley Edward Smith, III, appeals the district court’s

order denying his motion for reconsideration as untimely. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v.

Charleston County School District, No. 2:06-cv-02177-DCN (D.S.C.

May 8, 2008). We deny Smith’s application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis as moot, as in forma pauperis status has already

been granted. We also deny Smith’s motion for 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
#### Leonard R. LANGLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-144.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 9, 1970.

Rehearing Denied March 5, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Mrs. Mary CINTGRAN v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SHELBY HOSPITAL.

No. 45354.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 19, 1969.

Alexander, Feduccia & Alexander, Jacobs, Griffith & Hatcher, Cleveland, for appellant.

Campbell, DeLong, Keady & Robertson, L. Carl Hagwood, Greenville, for appellee.

GILLESPIE, Presiding Justice:

 Mrs. Mary Cintgran, plaintiff below and appellant here, sued the Board of *678Trustees of the Shelby Hospital for personal injuries sustained when she fell while descending the steps to the hospital after visiting one of the patients, her daughter. She charged that the hospital was negligent in failing to provide adequate lighting at the entrance where she fell. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant and plaintiff appealed. After a careful study we are of the opinion that the evidence was more than ample to justify the jury in finding that the entrance was adequately lighted. We are also of the opinion that the court did not err in its rulings on the admission of testimony. We find no reversible error in the instructions. When read together they furnished the jury a proper guide for its deliberations.

Affirmed.

RODGERS, JONES, BRADY and IN-ZER, JJ.,- concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando QUIROZ-MADRIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-10137.

D.C. No. CR-00-00034-ROS.

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).

*261MEMORANDUM **

Armando Quiroz-Madriz appeals his conviction and 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Quiroz-Madriz contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because his counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of a possible defense based on the reasoning of *United States v. Pacheco-Medina,*212 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2000). We disagree with the government’s suggestion that Quiroz-Madriz’ appeal waiver precludes review of this claim. *See United States v. Pruitt,*32 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir.1994) (‘We doubt that a plea agreement could waive a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s erroneously unprofessional inducement of the defendant to plead guilty or accept a particular plea bargain.”).

Nevertheless, we do agree with the government that the issue is more properly raised in a collateral proceeding where there is an opportunity to fully develop the record. *See United States v. Hanoum,*33 F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir.1994) (observing that an ineffective assistance claim is more properly raised in a habeas petition because such claims cannot be advanced without development of facts outside the record).

Quiroz-Madriz has not set forth any other argument to support his claim that his plea was not knowing or voluntary. Accordingly, we uphold the valid appeal waiver and lack jurisdiction to review the remaining contention that QuirozAMadriz’ 1995 California conviction may not have qualified as an aggravated felony. See *United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1184 (9th Cir.2000) (rejecting argument that an appeal waiver is invalidated where a defendant and attorney may not have recognized the strength of potential appellate claims).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Supplemental.2 - NYTimes Final
Treasury Tribal Advisory Committee (TTAC) Public Meeting

June 20, 2019
9:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

U.S. Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Cash Room
Washington, DC 20220

Agenda

Welcome Remarks

* Jovita Carranza, Treasurer

Overview of Treasury Tribal Advisory Committee

* Krishna Vallabhaneni, Treasury Designated Federal Officer (DFO), TAC

Introductions

¢ Krishna Vallabhaneni, Designated Federal Officer

Appointment of Chair/Co-Chair
* TIAC

Roll Call
* Chair, TTAC

Tribal Opening and Welcome Remarks

Treasury Tribal Advisory Committee Charter Review
Discussion of TTAC's Mission and Purpose

Adoption of TTAC By-Laws

Break
#### Ben D. WILDER, etc., Petitioner, v. Norman WILLNER et al., Respondents.

No. 44277.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 29, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 280 So.2d 1.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Serafin B. DELGADO, Deceased, et al., Petitioners, v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY et al., Respondents.

No. 40496.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 4, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3272]


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


JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of 
Appellate Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committee on 
Rules of Appellate Procedure.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure will 
hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation 
but not participation and will be held each day from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 
p.m.

DATES: April 3-4, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Judicial 
Conference Center, One Columbus Circle, NE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 
Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 273-1820.

    Dated: February 4, 1997.
John K. Rabiej,
Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. 97-3272 Filed 2-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          517000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 11902000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    141000
<INVENTORY>                                    6488000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              30463000
<PP&E>                                        18757000
<DEPRECIATION>                                11351000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                38855000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         24053000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         23000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     9755000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  38855000
<SALES>                                       20924000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              20924000
<CGS>                                         18333000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 18333000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              324000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 335000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     20000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             315000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    315000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14




</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11.3

<TABLE>

CPI CORP. COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE - BASIC
(in thousands of dollars or shares except per share amounts)
Twelve Weeks Ended July 24, 1999 and July 25, 1998

<CAPTION>
                                          Twelve Weeks Ended
                                         ----------------------
                                          July 24,    July 25,
                                            1999        1998
                                         ---------    ---------
<S>                                      <C>          <C>
Basic:
  Net earnings (loss) applicable to
    common shares                        $   (960)    $  1,387
                                         =========    =========
Shares:
  Weighted average number of
    common shares outstanding              17,781       17,639
  Less:  Treasury stock - weighted
    average                                (7,864)      (7,624)
                                         ---------    ---------
  Weighted average number of common
    and common equivalent shares
    outstanding                             9,917       10,015
                                         =========    =========
Net earnings (loss) per common and
    common equivalent shares             $  (0.10)    $   0.14
                                         =========    =========
</TABLE>













                              30
**Worksheet for Compiling Information for ERA Quarterly Reports Tribe, TDHE, and DHHL Recipients**

**April 2022**

****

# **Table of Contents**

Table of Contents	2Overview	3Portal Tab: Recipient Profile	4Portal Tab: Project Overview	6Portal Tab: Subrecipients, Contractors, and Beneficiaries	8Portal Tab: Recipient Subawards, Contracts, and Direct Payments	11Portal Tab: Expenditures	13Portal Tab: Project Data and Participant Demographics	19Portal Tab: Performance and Financial Reporting	23Portal Tab: Report Certification and Submission	25

****

# **Overview**

Use this worksheet to review the entire list of quarterly reporting data points in preparation for submitting an ERA Quarterly Report. The worksheet contains all the required data points as they appear in Treasury’s portal for Recipient Reporting. The worksheet includes one table for each Tab (in Treasury’s portal. Sub-modules are indicated by blue header bars. The **bold** words indicate the method for reporting data – **yes/no questions, manual entry, text box,** etc. 

This worksheet focuses specifically on the data points applicable to Tribal, TDHE[footnoteRef:2], and the DHHL[footnoteRef:3] recipients.  [2:  Indian Tribes, Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHEs)]  [3:  Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL)] 

Please see the following documents as you prepare for submitting an ERA Quarterly Report:

· Reporting Guidance, Emergency Rental Assistance Program

· User Guide for Treasury’s Portal for Recipient Reporting, Emergency Rental Assistance Programs 

· Emergency Rental Assistance webpage (Treasury.gov/era)

If you have questions or need additional information, please contact us via email at EmergencyRentalAssistance@Treasury.gov

# **Portal Tab: Recipient Profile**

****

# **Portal Tab: Project Overview**

****

# **Portal Tab: Subrecipients, Contractors, and Beneficiaries**

# **Portal Tab: Recipient Subawards, Contracts, and Direct Payments**

# **Portal Tab: Expenditures**

****

# **Portal Tab: Project Data and Participant Demographics**

# **Portal Tab: Performance and Financial Reporting**

# **Portal Tab: Report Certification and Submission**

	Worksheet for Compiling Information for ERA Quarterly Reports 												Page 1Tribal, TDHE, and DHHL Recipients April 2022
Exhibit
4.79


 


Summary
of the Rural Partnership Agreement, entered into on July 30, 2021, in connection with Fazenda Arrojadinho. 


 


Parties:
Agrifirma Bahia Agropecuária Ltda., as the owner of the land; Brasilagro Companhia Brasileira de Propriedades Agrícolas,
as the operating company; and Régis Luiz Astolfi as the individual interested in entering a rural partnership with the abovementioned
companies.


 


Purpose:  Granting
of the possession, until August 1, 2021, of a total area equivalent to 511 arable hectares of Fazenda Arrojadinho on behalf of Mr. Régis
Luiz Astolfi for purposes of the exploitation of the land under a rural partnership regime, by means of the sharing, by and among the
parties, of the earnings received from the crops/harvest arising from the aforementioned partnership. Each of Brasilagro Companhia Brasileira
de Propriedades Agrícolas and Régis Luiz Astolfi shall be entitled to 50% of the earnings/losses therefrom.
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 Tianli Agritech, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hanying Li, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Company.





Dated: March 16, 2011

/s/ Hanying LiHanying Li

Chief Executive Officer

(principal executive officer)
Pure
Harvest Corporate Group, Inc.


7400
E. Crestline Cir.


Ste.
130


Greenwood
Village, CO 80111


October
22, 2021


Kingpins
International, Inc.


4530
East Ray Road


Ste.
172


Phoenix,
AZ 85044


 


RE:
Notice of Termination


 


Dear
Mr. Holloway,


 


This
letter is to notify you that Pure Harvest Corporate Group, Inc. (“PHCG”) is terminating the amended Definitive Share
Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) between PHCG and Kingpins International, Inc.’s (“Kingpins”).
Under the terms of the Agreement, Kingpins was to purchase thirty-two million nine hundred sixty-seven thousand and thirty-three (32,967,033)
shares of PHCG common stock at a price of forty-five- and one-half cents ($0.455) per share for a total investment of fifteen million
dollars ($15,000,000) on or before October 7, 2021 with a ten (10) day cure period.


 


As
PHCG has not received the investment, this letter shall serve as written notice of PHCG’s termination of the Agreement pursuant
to Section 11(a)(iii). PHCG expressly reserves all rights and remedies it may have in regard to Kingpins’ breach of the Agreement;
however, I hope that we can reach an agreement to settle any future issues between our two companies.


 


Sincerely,


 


 


 


Matthew
Gregarek, CEO
**Mi chael Joseph Indovina VI, Mike Six Imaging**  **- Section 333 Exemption**  **Am endment** 

Michael	Joseph	Indovina	VI,	Mike	Six	Imaging,	Los	Angeles	CA

– Section	333	Exemption Amendment Page 1 of 1 December	15 th,	2015 U.S.	Department	of	Transportation Docket	Management	System 1200	New	Jersey	Ave,	SE Washington,	DC	20590 Re: Amendment	to	Exemption	No.	11998,	Docket	No.	FAA
- 2015
- 0331 To	Whom	It	May	Concern: I,	Michael	Joseph	Indovina	VI hereby request	an	amendment	to	Exemption	N o. 11998.		By	letter,	dated	July	9 th,	2015, exemption	was	issued	under	section	333	of the	FAA	Modernization	and	Reform	Act	of	2012,	to	operate	a	UAS	for	commercial photography	purposes.		In	this	petition	for	an	amendment to	exemption	No.	11998,	I am	seeking	to	add	additional	UAS	types	to	be	used	for	the	same	purposes.		The proposed	operation	and	all	governing	exemptions	and	limitations	remain unchanged.		The	FAA	is	familiar	with	and	has	already	determined	that	the	two models	being	added	here	meet	the	requirements	of	Section	333	of	the	Reform	Act due	to	their	weight,	speed	and	operational	capabilities. Each	of	the	two	models	being	added	below	have	set	no	new	precedents	and	exist	in numerous exemptions	under	Section	333.		I request	the	addition	of	the	following UAS	types	to	Exemption	No.	11998: **DJI	Inspire	1** ( P reviously granted	to	CineDrones,	LLC
- Exemption	No.	11279) **DJI	Phantom	3** ( Previously	granted	to	Guardian	Group,	Inc.
- Exemption	No. 12896 ) This	amendment	only	seeks to	add	sUAS	vehicles	that	the	FAA	has	already	approved for	commercial	purposes	under	Section	333.		I	respectfully	submit	that	this amendment	request	is	not	precedent	setting	and	therefore	qualifies	for	expedited approval	via	the	FAA’s	summary	grant	process .		For	these	same	reasons,	I	also believe	that	good	cause	exists	for	not	publishing	a	summary	of	this	amendment request	in	the	Federal	Register.		If	you	have	any	questions,	or	need	additio nal information	to	process	this amendment for	my	exemption,	please	d o	not	hesitate	to contact	me with	any	of	the	methods	listed	below
.

Michael	Joseph	Indovina	VI VI@mikesix.com www.mikesix.com 8000	West	Manchester	Ave.	# 222 Playa	Del	Rey,	CA 90293 805
- 455
- 9041
EXHIBIT 11.1
<TABLE>

CPI CORP. COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE - DILUTED
(in thousands of dollars or shares except per share amounts)
Twelve Weeks Ended July 24, 1999 and July 25, 1998

<CAPTION>
                                            Twelve Weeks Ended
                                          ----------------------
                                           July 24,    July 25,
                                             1999        1998
                                          ---------    ---------
<S>                                       <C>          <C>
Diluted:
  Net earnings (loss) applicable to common
    shares                                $   (960)    $  1,387
                                          =========    =========
Shares:
  Weighted average number of
    common shares outstanding               17,781       17,639
  Shares issuable under employee
    stock plans - weighted average               -*          31
  Dilutive effect of exercise of
    certain stock options                        -*         277
  Less: Treasury stock-weighted average     (7,864)      (7,624)
                                          ---------    ---------
  Weighted average number of common and
    common equivalent shares outstanding     9,917       10,323
                                          =========    =========
Net earnings (loss) per common and
    common equivalent shares              $  (0.10)    $   0.13
                                          =========    =========

<FN>
* The dilutive effect of 34,159 stock options as well as 402,946
  shares issuable under employee stock plans was not considered
  as the effect is antidilutive.
</FN>
</TABLE>






                              28