alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 2ND QUARTER 2004

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 3/25 3/29 4/1 18.00 18.00 16.00 57.00 -5.00

3&6 MONTH BILLS 4/1 4/5 4/8 18.00 18.00 16.00 58.00 -6.00

4/9 4/12 4/15 16.00 18.00 16.00 56.00 -6.00

4/16 4/20 4/22 13.00 18.00 16.00 53.00 -6.00

4/23 4/26 4/29 11.00 17.00 16.00 53.00 -9.00

4/30 5/3 5/6 8.00 17.00 16.00 54.00 -13.00

5/7 5/10 5/13 8.00 16.00 16.00 51.00 -11.00

5/14 5/17 5/20 20.00 16.00 16.00 48.00 4.00

5/21 5/24 5/27 23.00 16.00 16.00 46.00 9.00

5/28 5/31 6/3 20.00 18.00 16.00 43.00 11.00

6/4 6/7 6/10 20.00 18.00 16.00 43.00 11.00

6/11 6/14 6/17 16.00 17.00 17.00 52.00 -2.00

6/18 6/21 6/24 15.00 17.00 17.00 55.00 -6.00

640.00 669.00 -29.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

10-Day Bill 4/1 4/2 4/5 20.00 20.00 0.00

Matures 4/15

9-Day Bill 5/3 5/4 5/5 15.00 15.00 0.00

Matures 5/14

11-Day Bill 6/2 6/3 6/4 20.00 20.00 0.00

Matures 6/15

COUPONS

CHANGE 

IN SIZE

5-Year Note 4/5 4/6 4/15 16.00 16.00

10-year TIPS ( R ) 4/5 4/7 4/15 8.00 8.00 8.00

20-year TIPS 4/5 4/8 4/15 12.00 12.00 12.00

2-Year Note 4/26 4/28 5/3 27.00 24.32 2.68

3-Year Note 5/3 5/11 5/17 26.00 2.00 26.00

5-Year Note 5/3 5/12 5/17 18.00 2.00 16.21 1.80

10-Year Note 5/3 5/13 5/17 19.00 2.00 16.82 2.18

2-Year Note 5/24 5/26 6/1 28.00 1.00 27.00 1.00

5-Year Note 6/7 6/9 6/15 18.00 18.00

10-Year Note (R) 6/7 6/10 6/15 15.00 2.00 15.00

2-Year Note 6/23 6/28 6/30 28.00 26.52 1.48

215.00 110.87 104.13

R = Reopening Treasury announced a Q2 NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 75.13

A = Announced borrowing need of $75

billion on 2/2/04
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33285]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 
Miami International Airport, Miami, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is making available 
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed new 
8600 feet Runway 8-26 at Miami International Airport, Miami, Florida.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Bart Vernace, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando Airports 
District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, 
Florida 32822, (407) 812-6331, extension 27.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA is making 
available for review and comment to governmental agencies and the 
public the DEIS for the proposed new 8600 feet Runway 8-26 at Miami 
International Airport, Miami, Florida. Any person may review the DEIS 
at the location listed above under the heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT. A public hearing is scheduled for February 4, 1998 in Miami, 
Florida. Location and time for the public hearing will be announced at 
a later date.
    Comments may be directed to the individual named above under the 
heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Comment period expires on 
February 20, 1998.

    Issued in Orlando, Florida, December 12, 1997.
John W. Reynolds, Jr.,
Assistant Manager, Orlando Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 97-33285 Filed 12-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
August 31, 2010

MEMORANDUM

TO: EPA Docket #EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211

FROM: Robert Anderson, Environmental Protection Specialist, EPA/OAR/OTAQ/CISD

RE: Preliminary Data from Tier DOE Catalyst Durability Program (V4/CRC E-87-2)

Attached is an Excel spreadsheet that contains preliminary data from the DOE Catalyst Durability Test 

Program also referred to as the DOE V4 program or the CRC E-87-2 program. These data are preliminary 

results for the Tier 2 vehicle portion of the test program.

The enclosed spreadsheet contains all data submitted to EPA from DOE as of August 31, 2010. It should 

be noted that these data are preliminary and therefore, subject to change based on ongoing QA/QC. 

Please read the “readme” tab of the attached spreadsheet for more information concerning the data.

For more information, please contact Robert Anderson at either anderson.robert@epa.gov or (202) 343-

9718.
----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/05/2010 10:29 AM

----- |------------> | From: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |"Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | To: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Date: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |08/05/2010 09:58 AM | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Subject: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------| |Additional Interagency Comments on RICE | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------|

Hi Melanie, Attached are additional interagency comments I’ve received on RICE. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Cortney (See attached file: InteragencyWorkingCommentsonEPA_RICE_SI_EO12866Review_08052010.pdf)
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Jesus MARTINEZ, Appellee.

No. 73-467.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 12, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
Materials NQt Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2009-1229

Directorate Identifier: 2009NM106AD

601 R-32-104 --- 3/3/09

TACTAIR SB750006000-1, RE ---7/31/08

NamelDescription of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave, Sw"

Renton, WA 98057

425227,1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 pm., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 0310512008
Kenya: Menengai Geothermal Development Project 

African Development Bank 

December 14, 2011 

U.S. Position 

The United States strongly supports the goals of this project and Kenya’s efforts to 

develop its geothermal energy resources in a transparent and sustainable manner, as part 

of the broader development of the substantial geothermal energy resources in East 

Africa. 

Unlocking this enormous potential will lead to the expansion of low cost, clean energy 

that can act as base load power for the region. Over the long term, this will translate into 

greater access to reliable electricity for households and businesses, enhanced prospects 

for durable economic growth and poverty reduction, and an assured low carbon growth 

trajectory for Kenya and the East Africa region as a whole. 

The Menengai project, which is expected to lead in a second phase to an additional 

400MW of clean electricity generation for Kenya, is an important step towards that long 

term goal. It will clearly help provide a permanent solution to what have primarily been 

costly, stop-gap solutions to power sector emergencies in Kenya that have held back 

economic growth. 

The United States would have liked to support this project, but is required to abstain on 

this operation because the posted environmental impact assessment did not discuss the 

associated and cumulative impacts of the subsequent power plant and other geothermal 

developments nearby, as required by U.S. law (“the Pelosi Amendment”). 

The United States looks forward to future geothermal power projects in Kenya and the 

East Africa region and requests that comprehensive environmental impact assessments be 

conducted and posted publicly in country and on the bank’s website in sufficient time so 

that our support is possible.
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-2 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
 
 4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement and administration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and
 
 5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Nelnet Servicing, LLC, as subservicer, and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee.
 
  
 
  
 /s/ CHRISTIAN LOWN
U.S. flag
          Un sitio oficial del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos
            Así es como usted puede verificarlo
          Así es como usted puede verificarloDot gov**El .gov significa que es oficial.**
                
                Los sitios web del gobierno federal siempre usan un dominio .gov o .mil. Antes de compartir información confidencial en línea, asegúrese de estar en un sitio .gov o .mil.
          Https**Este sitio es seguro.**
                
                El **https://** medios todos los datos transmitidos son cifrados - en otras palabras, cualquier información o el historial de navegación que proporcione se transmite de forma segura.

    
          FTC: Translation Menu
  

        
EnglishFTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        
    
    Reporte las estafas
                                
                          
        
                Reciba alertas **
Menú


    close


                  FTC: Main navigation (ES)
  

        
  
  Consejos para consumidores
      
    Guía para negocios
      
    Reembolsos
      
    Noticias
      
    Acerca de la FTC
      
    Buscar
        
        
        FTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        
    
    Reporte las estafas
                                
                          
        
                Reciba alertas

          
  
          Consejos para consumidores
      
    
              Guía para negocios
      
    
              Reembolsos
      
    
              Noticias
      
    
              Acerca de la FTC
      
    
              Buscar Public Events Tagged with Appliances
  


  Sobrescribir enlaces de ayuda a la navegación
      Inicio
                                                                        Noticias de la FTC
                                                                        All Events: CalendarView this page in English FTC Free Workshops for Businesses: Protecting Personal Information Fighting Fraud with the Red Flags Rule (29  de Abr de 2009
)
          The Rebate Debate (27  de Abr de 2007
)
  
    
    
    

  Return to top **
Menú
FTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        


      Reporte las estafas
                              Reciba alertas
  
  
      FTC: Footer (es)
  

        


      Política de privacidad y noticias
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7464
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAVINO BRAXTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge; Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-135-K, CA-97-465-K) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 19, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Savino Braxton, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), in which he sought review of the district court's previous decision to deny relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), without an evidentiaryhearing and in which he claimed he is entitled to discovery. Because Appellant filed the motion more than ten days after entry of judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), the motion is properly construed as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We have reviewedthe record and the district court's order and find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion. See Heyman v. M.L. Mktg. Co. , 116 F.3d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1997) (stating standard of review); CNF Constructors, Inc. v. Donohoe Constr. Co. , 57 F.3d 395, 401 (4th Cir. 1995) (finding that where motion seeks reconsideration of legal issues already addressed in earlier ruling, motion is not authorized by Rule 60(b) and rejection of motion is not an abuse of discretion) (citing United States v. Williams , 674 F.2d 310, 313 (4th Cir. 1982)). Accordingly, we grant Appellant's motion to file an oversize brief, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2218 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2218

To repeal the wage rate requirements commonly known as the Davis-Bacon 
                                  Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2021

Mr. Good of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the wage rate requirements commonly known as the Davis-Bacon 
                                  Act.

    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 ``Davis-Bacon Repeal Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DAVIS-BACON WAGE REQUIREMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United 
States Code, is repealed.
    (b) Reference.--Any reference in any law to a wage requirement of 
subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code, shall 
after the date of the enactment of this Act be null and void.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND LIMITATION.

    The amendment made by section 2 shall take effect 30 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act but shall not affect any contract in 
existence on such date of enactment or made pursuant to invitation for 
bids outstanding on such date of enactment.
                                 <all>
```
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 Annual Report of Hugoton Royalty Trust (the
Trust) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of
the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|              |  |  |  |                                   |  |                    
|------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|              |  |  |  | Bank of America, N.A.,           
|              |  |  |  | Trustee for Hugoton Royalty Trust
|              |  |  | 
|March 8, 2013 |  |  |  | By:                               |  | /S/ NANCY G. WILLIS
|              |  |  |  |                                   |  | Nancy G. Willis    
|              |  |  |  |                                   |  | Vice President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gioulnara SALIMOVA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50703.

D.C. No. CR-97-01258-RSWL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 16, 2002.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Gioulnara Salimova appeals her sentence imposed following our remand in her prior appeal, No. 98-50502. Salimova has completed serving the custodial portion of her sentence. Salimova’s attorney has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Salimova has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Counsel identifies the potential issue of whether the district court’s restitution order is authorized by the restitution statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. We conclude that the district court was permitted to include losses beyond those of the offenses of conviction because Salimova was convicted of participating in a scheme to defraud banks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. *See United States v. Johnson,*132 F.3d 1279, 1286-87 (9th Cir.1997) (stating that § 3663A(a)(2) authorizes restitution for losses beyond the offense of conviction where the offense includes an element of a scheme, conspiracy or pattern of criminal conduct). The evidence was sufficient, for purposes of sentencing, to support the district court’s finding that these other losses *281were connected to the scheme in which Sahmova participated. *See United States v. Egge,*223 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2000) (“In making factual determinations, a sentencing judge is generally not restricted to evidence that would be admissible at trial.”).

Our independent review of the record under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346,102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no other issues requiring further review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 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.
#### Willie C. ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 44263.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 11, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 281 So.2d 88.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Ronald ROTH, Appellant, v. Annie CANNEL and Max Cannel, Appellees. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY and North River Insurance Co., Appellees (two cases). Ronald ROTH, Appellant, v. Sidney S. SOLOMON, as Administrator of the Estate of Mollie Solomon, Deceased, et al., Appellees.

Nos. 70-233, 70-234, 70-305, 70-724, 70-235, 70-236, 70-306, 70-796.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 22, 1972.

Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Carson & Wahl and Richard Thornton, Miami, for appellants.

Preddy, Haddad, Kutner & Hardy, Miami, for Yellow Rent-a-Car and Old Republic.

Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, for Plax and North River.

Bretan & Marks, Miami, for Solomon, Cannels and Rae Roth, appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on December 29, 1970 (242 So.2d 491) affirming the judgments of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

*53Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed May 3, 1972 (269 So.2d 3) and mandate now lodged in this court quashed this court’s judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings in accordance with the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida;

Now, therefore, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on January 20, 1971 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court filed on December 29, 1970 is vacated, the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, the judgments appealed from herein are reversed and the cause remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings in accordance with the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the circuit court (Rule 3.16, subd. b, F.A.R., 32 F.S. A.).