alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 2nd QUARTER 2013

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

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

4-WEEK AND 3/28 4/1 4/4 45.00 36.00 28.00 25.00 131.00 3.00

3&6&12 MO BILLS 4/4 4/8 4/11 45.00 36.00 28.00 105.00 4.00

4/11 4/15 4/18 45.00 36.00 28.00 105.00 4.00

4/18 4/22 4/25 40.00 33.00 28.00 105.00 -4.00

4/25 4/29 5/2 40.00 32.00 28.00 25.00 131.00 -6.00

5/2 5/6 5/9 40.00 32.00 28.00 105.00 -5.00

5/9 5/13 5/16 40.00 32.00 28.00 105.00 -5.00

5/16 5/20 5/23 40.00 32.00 28.00 100.00 0.00

5/23 5/27 5/30 40.00 32.00 28.00 25.00 125.00 0.00

5/30 6/3 6/6 30.00 32.00 28.00 102.00 -12.00

6/6 6/10 6/13 30.00 32.00 28.00 104.00 -14.00

6/13 6/17 6/20 30.00 32.00 28.00 104.00 -14.00

6/20 6/24 6/27 30.00 32.00 28.00 25.00 129.00 -14.00

1388.00 1451.00 -63.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

55-DAY BILL Matures 4/18 30.00 -30.00

69-DAY BILL Matures 4/25 30.00 -30.00

CMB Funds: -60.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

3-year Note 4/4 4/9 4/15 32.00 0.00

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

30-year Bond ® 4/4 4/11 4/15 13.00 0.00 42.93 23.07

5-year TIPS 4/11 4/18 4/30 17.00 1.00

2-year Note 4/18 4/23 4/30 35.00 0.00

5-year Note 4/18 4/24 4/30 35.00 0.00

7-year Note 4/18 4/25 4/30 29.00 0.00 57.95 58.05

3-year Note 5/1 5/7 5/15 32.00 0.00

10-year Note 5/1 5/8 5/15 24.00 0.00

30-year Bond 5/1 5/9 5/15 16.00 0.00 59.57 12.43

10-year TIPS ® 5/9 5/16 5/31 13.00 0.00

2-year Note 5/16 5/21 5/31 35.00 0.00

5-year Note 5/16 5/22 5/31 35.00 0.00

7-year Note 5/16 5/23 5/31 29.00 0.00 58.46 53.54

3-year Note 6/6 6/11 6/17 32.00 0.00

10-year Note ® 6/6 6/12 6/17 21.00 0.00

30-year Note ® 6/6 6/13 6/17 13.00 0.00 36.21 29.79

30-year TIPS ® 6/13 6/20 6/28 8.00 1.00

2-year note 6/20 6/25 7/1 35.00 0.00

5-year note 6/20 6/26 7/1 35.00 0.00

7-year note 6/20 6/27 7/1 29.00 0.00 58.27 48.73

539.00 313.39 225.61

Estimates are italicized. R = Reopening

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 103
#### Fred L. NEWMAN, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 40433.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 8, 1970.

Certiorari dismissed. 239 So.2d 608.
# Suppor t Documents for

Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) on

Premanufacture Notice (PMN)

P-04-338

EPA Docket EPA

- HQ

- OPPT -2011-0577

# Index

A-001 Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report for

PMN P-04-338

A-002 Initial Review Engineering Report for

PMN P-04-338

A-003 Initial Review Exposure Report for

PMN P-04-338

# A-001

Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report

for PMN P-04-338

# A-002

Initial Review Engineering Report

for PMN P-04-338

# A-003

Initial Review Exposure Report

for PMN P-04-338
#### HARBOR YACHT REPAIR, INC., Appellant, v. Lionel SANGER, Appellee.

No. 72-1451.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 19, 1973.

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1973.

See also Fla.App., 267 So.2d 51.

*65Gars & Dixon, Miami, for appellant.

Louis Vernell, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant brought an action m replev-in to recover possession of an automobile. The appellee claimed that the automobile was delivered to him as security for a loan which had not been repaid. The trial court found after a trial without jury that the appellee was entitled to possession under the agreement of the parties.

On this appeal, the appeuant urges that because title to the automobile had not passed to the appellee, the appellant should have been awarded possession of the security. The findings of the trial court arrive in an appellate court clothed in a presumption of correctness and an appellate court will not reverse such findings when they are supported by competent evidence. See City of Miami Beach v. Fein, Fla.App.1972, 263 So.2d 258. The findings before us on this appeal were made upon conflicting evidence and there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding that the parties agreed that the appellee was to have possession of the security until the loan was repaid.

Affirmed.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 29 83

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v. Edg ar Fabi an Hern an de z
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ctof I owa - Ced ar Rapi ds

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: May 15, 2 01 8 Fi le d: May 25, 2 01 8 [Un publ is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, BOW MAN, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.
Edg ar Hern an de z di rect ly ap pe al s th e se nt en ce th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d aft er 1 he pl ed gu il ty to a drug ch arg e an d w a s s e nt en ced to 25 2 m on th s in pr is on
. His

The Hon or ab le Leo na rd T. St ran d, Chi ef Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1 fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ctof I owa
.co un se l ha s m ov ed fo r le av e to wit hd raw, an d ha s fil ed a br ie f un de r And ers v.

Cal ifo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7) , ch al le ng in g a Gui de li ne s en ha nc em en t an d arg ui ng th at th e se n t e n ce is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. Hern an de z ha s no t fil ed a pr o se br ie f.

W e fin d no erro r in th e di st ric t co urt’s cal cu la ti on of th e Gui de li ne s ran ge
. See Uni te d St at es v. Turn er, 78 1 F.3 d 37 4, 39 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (th is co ur t rev ie ws di st ric t
co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of Gui de li ne s de no vo , a n d i ts fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear erro r). Fu rth er, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t im po se a su bs ta nt iv el y
un reas on ab le sen te nc e. See Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) (d is cu ss in g app el la te rev ie w of se nt en ci ng de ci si on s) . In ad di ti on , we ha ve in de pe nd en tl y rev ie wed th e reco rd un de r Pen so n v. Ohi o, 48 8 U.S. 75 (1 98 8) , an d ha ve fo un d no no nf riv ol ou s is su es fo r ap pe al

. Acco rd in gl y , we gr an t
co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw, an d we a ffi rm
.

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

-2

-
MATHEWSON EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT
 AGREEMENT GOLD RUN INC. DAVE MATHEWSON
 WITNESSETH:
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW,
THEREFORE
 1


Employment and Term
   Duties
  2


3


Base Salary
 Expenses
 Termination of
Employment
   4


5


6


other than provided that
 Employee
Undertaking except
 7


Grant of
Royalty
 Stock or
Option Plan
 Confidential Information
 8


Restrictions on Employee Upon Employees Termination
 9


Construction and Enforcement of Sections 9 and 10
 10


Release upon Termination or Expiration
 Company Reliance on Employee Representations
 11


12


Assignability
 Captions; Sections
 Governing Law
 13


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF
 GOLD RUN INC.By:
     /s/ Richard D. BrownRichard D. Brown, Director/s/ Sondra Mathewson
     /s/ Dave MathewsonDAVE MATHEWSON
 14
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3471]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[CA-067-7122-6606; CACA-35511]


Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for 
the Proposal Imperial Project, California

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Amendment and notice of second public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of February 3, 1997 (Vol. 62, No. 22, 
pages 5033-5034) a notice was published pertaining to the holding of a 
public hearing on the draft Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Imperial Project which is 
an open-pit, heap leach gold mine in eastern Imperial County. This 
amends that notice by adding a second public hearing in addition to the 
public hearing in Holtville on February 6, 1997. The second hearing, 
located in San Diego County, is scheduled for February 13, 1997 at the 
Comfort Inn, 800 Parkway Drive, La Mesa. The hearing will be held from 
7 PM to 8:30 PM. Written comments should be sent to the Bureau of Land 
Management, 1661 South Fourth Street, El Centro, California, 92251, 
Attention: Keith Shone, and must be delivered or postmarked no later 
than February 13, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Shone (619) 337-4412 or Thomas 
Zale (619) 337-4420.

    Dated: February 6, 1997.
Henri R. Bisson,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 97-3471 Filed 2-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-M
AMENDED AND RESTATED
AGREEMENT
 THIS
AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT DAVE MATHEWSON GOLD RUN INC.,
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 NOW
THEREFORE,
 Mathewson Equity Interest; Subscription; Adjustment of Number of Shares;
Acquisition Shares.


more
 less
 excluded
 2


less
 Gold Run Funding Obligation.
  earlier
  minus provided
 3


August 11, 2006
     
     
     $
     300,000September 30, 2006
     
     
     $
     300,000March 31, 2007
     
     
     $
     1,400,000July 31, 2007
     
     
     $
     1,000,000January 31, 2008
     
     
     $
     1,000,000July 31, 2008
     
     
     $
     1,000,000January 31, 2009
     
     
     $
     500,000April 30, 2009
     
     
     $
     500,000TOTAL:
     
     
     $
     6,000,000
 Option to Accelerate Funding.
 Revised Funding Obligation.
 August 11, 2006
     
     
     $
     300,000September 30, 2006
     
     
     $
     300,000March 31, 2007
     
     
     $
     500,000July 31, 2007
     
     
     $
     1,900,000January 31, 2008
     
     
     $
     1,000,000July 31, 2008
     
     
     $
     1,000,000January 31, 2009
     
     
     $
     500,000April 30, 2009
     
     
     $
     500,000TOTAL:
     
     
     $
     6,000,000
 4


Gold
Runs Default; Cure; Transfer of Property to Mathewson
 Exploration Costs. and
 5


Restrictions on Resale.
    6


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF,
 7


GOLD RUN INC.By:
     /s/ Richard D. BrownRichard D. Brown, Director/s/ Sondra Mathewson
     /s/ Dave MathewsonDave Mathewson
 8
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 

Office of the Secretary 

July 18, 2013 

Curt Kammeraaad 

State of Arizona 

Re: In the Matter of The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., File No. 082 3199, Docket No. C-4407

Dear Mr. Kammeraaad: 

Thank you for commenting on the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed consent 

agreement in the above-referenced proceeding. The Commission has placed your comment on 

the public record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. 

§ 4.9(b)(6)(ii), and has given it serious consideration. 

Your comment raised concern that the agreement imposed “no sanction at all” on the 

respondent. Your comment further stated that a significant sanction is warranted because the 

respondent was under FTC investigation in 2009 for similar Fur Act violations. Your comment 

suggests that the Commission, therefore, seek more stringent relief against both the respondent 

and its officers and managers because they “willfully and purposefully” violated the Fur Act. 

After consideration of your comment, the Commission has determined that the relief set 

forth in the consent agreement is appropriate and sufficient to remedy the violations alleged in 

the complaint. First, the order imposes significant relief. Specifically, it prohibits the respondent 

from web, mail, and catalog advertisements that violate the Fur Act and Rules. Under federal 

law, a violation of an FTC order is punishable by a civil penalty of up to $16,000 per violation. 

Therefore, if the Commission learns of violations by respondent in the future, the Commission 

can initiate an action seeking civil penalties for those violations. Moreover, the respondent has 

offered refunds to all consumers who purchased the falsely advertised products. Second, the 

Commission determined that it is not necessary to hold individual managers or officers liable. 

Whether it is appropriate to name individual managers, officers, or employees in a complaint is a 

fact-specific determination. Here, the Commission did not conclude or allege that any such 

individuals bore particular responsibility for the alleged wrongdoing; nor is there reason to 

believe that any would leave Neiman Marcus and form a new entity in order to avoid the order. 

 
Commenter Kammeraaad 

July 18, 2013 

Accordingly, the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be 

served by issuing the Decision and Order in this matter in final form without modification. The 

final Decision and Order and other relevant materials are available from the Commission’s 

website at http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of 

sources in its work, and we thank you again for your comment. 

 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary
**Exhibit 32.2**

**RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION**

In connection with the periodic report of Restoration Hardware, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period endedFebruary 2, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Chris Newman, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes ofTitle 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge: 

(1) the Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

Date: April 17, 2008
The State of New Hampshire 

### ~~FS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Thomas S. Burack, Commissioner November 29, 2011 Mr . Curt Spalding Regional Administrator USEPA New

England, Region I 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 Boston, MA 02109-3912 Re: Revision to New

Hampshire's State Implementation Plan to Meet the Requirements of the Clean AirAct, Section 169A, Protection ofVisibility (Regional Haze) Dear Administrator Spalding: On August 26, 2011, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) submitted amendments to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision pertaining to protection ofvisibility and regional haze. It has come to our attention that EPAmay not have received the updated BART analyses (Attachment X), which were intended to accompany that submittal . Hence, as Governor John Lynch's designee, I amsubmitting herewith the amended BART analyses for PSNH Merrimack Station MK2 and PSNH Newington Station Unit NTI as components of the subject SIP revision. The submitted changes are minor in scope and limited to Section 5, "Degree of Visibility Improvement Anticipated fromBART," for each ofthe BART analyses . The revised text and tables are now consistent with Section 9ofthe main regional haze SIP revision document submitted last August . If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Jeff Underhill at (603) 271-1102. Sincerely .,

Air Resources Division Robert R . Scott Director rrsdblh enclosure: Amended BART Analyses (Attachment X), NH Regional Haze SIP Revision cc: Anne Arnold, USEPA Region I Anne McWilliams, USEPA Region I Tim Allen, USFWS (Lakewood, CO) Ralph Perron, NPS Holly Salazer, NPS (University Park, PA) Sandra Silva, NPS Chuck Sams, USFS (Atlanta, GA) Scott Copeland, USFS DES Web Site: www .des.nh.gov P .O . Box 95, 29 Haxen Drive, Concord, NewHampshire 03302-0095 Telephone: (603) 271-3503 Fax: (603) 271-2181 TDDAccess: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7350 

To streamline the process for consideration of applications for the placement 

of communications facilities on certain buildings and other property 

owned by the Federal Government, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2020 

Mr. GIANFORTE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To streamline the process for consideration of applications 

for the placement of communications facilities on certain 

buildings and other property owned by the Federal Government, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Standard Fees to Ex5 pedite Evaluation and Streamlining Act’’ or the ‘‘Stand6 ard FEES Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7350 IH

1 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMON FEDERAL FEE 

2 SCHEDULE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6409 of the Middle Class 

4 Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. 

5 1455) is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub7 section (e); and 

8 (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(d) COMMON FEE SCHEDULE.— 

11 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

12 provision of law, the Administrator of General Serv13 ices shall establish a common fee schedule for the 

14 processing of applications under subsections (b)(1) 

15 and (c). 

16 ‘‘(2) FEE GUIDELINES.—The application fees 

17 established under paragraph (1) shall be— 

18 ‘‘(A) based on direct and actual cost recov19 ery; and 

20 ‘‘(B) competitively neutral with regard to 

21 other users of the building or other property 

22 owned by the Federal Government. 

23 ‘‘(3) EXCEPTIONS.—The Administrator of Gen24 eral Services may establish exceptions to the fee 

25 amounts established under paragraph (1)— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7350 IH

1 ‘‘(A) in consideration of the public benefit 

2 provided by a grant of an easement, right-of3 way, or lease; and 

4 ‘‘(B) in the interest of expanding wireless 

5 and broadband coverage. 

6 ‘‘(4) USE OF FEES COLLECTED.—Any fee col7 lected by an executive agency under this section may 

8 be made available, as provided in appropriation Acts, 

9 to the agency to cover the costs of granting the ease10 ment, right-of-way, or lease.’’. 

11 (b) DEADLINE.—The Administrator of General Serv12 ices shall establish the fee schedule required under section 

13 6409(d) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 

14 Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. 1455(d)), as added by subsection 

15 (a), not later than 30 days after the date of enactment 

16 of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### In re Harold Otis HATTON v. STATE of Alabama Ex parte State of Alabama ex rel. Attorney General.

77-234.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 9, 1978.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Eugenia D. B. Hofammann, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Stanley E. Munsey, Heflin, Rosser & Munsey, Tuscumbia, for respondent.

MADDOX, Justice.

WRIT QUASHED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

All the Justices concur.
#### Eugene DOLPHUS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-902.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 9, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 3.1.1

                              STATE OF OF DELAWARE
                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                              BANCWEST CORPORATION


BANCWEST CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue
of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

-    FIRST: That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of BancWest Corporation
     resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment of the
     Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring said amendment
     to be advisable and directing that the proposed amendment be considered at
     the next annual meeting of the stockholders of said corporation. The
     resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:

               FURTHER RESOLVED, that to implement such increase the Board
               proposes that the first sentence of Article Fourth of the
               Certificate of Incorporation be amended to read as follows:

                      Fourth. The total number of shares of stock which the
                      corporation shall have authority to issue is Six Hundred
                      Million (600,000,000) shares having a par value of One
                      Dollar ($1.00) per share, divided into three classes: Four
                      Hundred Million (400,000,000) shares designated as Common
                      Stock (the "Common Stock"); One Hundred Fifty Million
                      (150,000,000) shares designated as Class A Common Stock
                      (the "Class A Common Stock"); and Fifty Million
                      (50,000,000) shares designated as Preferred Stock (the
                      "Preferred Stock").

-    SECOND: That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors,
     an annual meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was duly called
     and held upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General
     Corporation Law of the State of Delaware at which meeting the necessary
     number of shares as required by statute were voted in favor of the
     amendment.

-    THIRD: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
     provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
     Delaware.

-    FOURTH: That the capital of said corporation shall not be reduced under or
     by reason of said amendment.
<PAGE>   2

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, BancWest Corporation has caused this certificate to be
signed by Howard H. Karr, an authorized officer, this 19th day of April, 2001.



                                     By:   /s/ Howard H. Karr
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                               Howard H. Karr
                                               Executive Vice President and
                                                  Chief Financial Officer



                                       2