alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [S-206-2024]

An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the St. Louis County Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 102, requesting subzone status for the facilities of True Manufacturing Co., Inc., located in O'Fallon and Mexico, Missouri. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on November 20, 2024.

The proposed subzone would consist of the following sites: Site 1 (184 acres)—2001 East Terra Lane, O'Fallon; and Site 2 (56 acres)—1655 Bassford Drive, Mexico. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 102.

In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kolade Osho of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

                    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:                     *ftz@trade.gov.*                     The closing period for their receipt is January 6, 2025. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to January 21, 2025.                

                    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information Section” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via                     *www.trade.gov/​ftz.*

                    For further information, contact Kolade Osho at                     *Kolade.Osho@trade.gov.*

Dated: November 20, 2024.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2024-27649 Filed 11-25-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# North Korean Refugees Enjoy Pacific Air Force Band

By Staff Sgt. Alex Fox Echols III51st Fighter Wing Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
EXHIBIT 11
                           ILLUMINET HOLDINGS, INC.

Computation of Earnings Per Share

                              Three Months Ended         Nine months Ended
                                 September 30,             September 30,
                              1997         1996          1997         1996
                              -----------------          -----------------

Primary:

Average common shares
outstanding                 5,287,478     5,161,152    5,278,504     4,847,019
                            =========     =========    =========     =========

Net income                 $2,455,906    $2,137,657   $5,771,942    $2,646,154
                            =========      ========    =========     =========

Per share amount           $     0.46     $    0.41   $     1.09    $     0.55
                            =========      ========    =========     =========

Fully diluted:

Primary average common
   shares outstanding       5,287,478     5,161,152    5,278,504     4,847,019
Assumed conversion of
   ILLUMINET 7.5%
   Debentures                 882,853       941,990      901,775       739,060
Assumed conversion of
   ILLUMINET Series A
   Preferred Stock            219,262        22,770      222,519        17,784
                            ---------     ---------    ---------     ---------
Totals                      6,389,593     6,125,912    6,402,798     5,603,863
                            =========     =========    =========     =========

Net income                 $2,455,906    $2,137,657   $5,771,942    $2,646,154
Add ILLUMINET 7.5%
   Debenture interest,
   net of federal
   income tax effect          127,070       171,000      387,543       443,000
                            ---------     ---------   ----------      --------

Totals                     $2,582,976    $2,308,657   $6,159,485  $  3,089,154
                            =========     =========    =========     =========

Per share amount           $     0.40    $     0.38   $     0.96    $     0.55
                            =========     =========    =========     =========
Exhibit 32.2    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 Desert Mining, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Peter K. Nelson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.      /s/Peter K. Nelson Peter K. Nelson Chief Financial Officer Date: March 28, 2007
IB 

Union Calendar No. 49 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1346 

[Report No. 115–85] 

To repeal the rule issued by the Federal Highway Administration and the 

Federal Transit Administration entitled ‘‘Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and Planning Area Reform’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2017 

Mr. LIPINSKI (for himself, Mr. LEWIS of Minnesota, Ms. ESTY, Mr. 

HULTGREN, Ms. NORTON, Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. WEBSTER

of Florida, Mr. NOLAN, Mrs. WALORSKI, Mr. COSTA, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. 

QUIGLEY, and Mr. DENHAM) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

APRIL 6, 2017 

Additional sponsors: Mr. BARLETTA, Mr. PAULSEN, Mr. DENT, Mr. RYAN of 

Ohio, Mr. SIRES, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. RATCLIFFE, Mr. TROTT, Mr. MAST, 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mrs. BUSTOS, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Mr. 

SCHNEIDER, Ms. FRANKEL of Florida, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, and Mr. 

EMMER

APRIL 6, 2017 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 1346 RH

A BILL 

To repeal the rule issued by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration entitled 

‘‘Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and 

Planning Area Reform’’. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 1346 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL. 

4 The rule issued by the Federal Highway Administra5 tion and the Federal Transit Administration entitled 

6 ‘‘Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and 

7 Planning Area Reform’’ (81 Fed. Reg. 93448 (December 

8 20, 2016)) shall have no force or effect, and any regula9 tion revised by that rule shall be applied as if that rule 

10 had not been issued. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

Union Calendar No. 49 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1346 

[Report No. 115–85] 

A BILL 

To repeal the rule issued by the Federal Highway 

zation Coordination and Planning Area Reform’’. tration entitled ‘‘Metropolitan Planning OrganiAdministration and the Federal Transit AdminisAPRIL 6, 2017 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
10 March 2014 

Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested 

Attn: Hearing Clerk, AGC-430 

Hearing Docket 

Wilbur Wright Bldg Room 2W1000 

800 Independence Avenue S.W. 

Washington DC 20591 

CC: David Shayne, via regular mail 

RECEIVED 

MAD n ' tl ""H· 1 u ..... .-~,. 

HEARING DOCKET 

R.e: In the Matter of Joseph D. Barbera, FAA Case No. 2013NM090056 

I am in receipt of FAA Attorney David Shayne's 6 March letter advising of his dates of 

unavailability. 

For scheduling purposes, I have the following blackout dates based upon prior 

commitments: 

12-23 May 

19 June- 7 July 

19 August- 3 September. 

In addition, I request that the hearing be in a Portland, Oregon area office and not 

Seattle, to accommodate my technical witnesses. Portland is also the office were I 

have been interfacing with the FAA. 

Sincerely ,,j ) , :{ il ,li 7\ J ' ,1 I 1\, ' l!l/ u /LJoseph ol Barbera 

14706 NE Erickson Dr. 

La Center, WA 98629 

360 263 5359 

barberaj@tds.net
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1166 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide greater State 

flexibility and innovation through Medicaid cost-sharing waivers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2017 

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

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide 

greater State flexibility and innovation through Medicaid 

cost-sharing waivers. 

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 ‘‘Medicaid Cost-Sharing 

5 Waiver Flexibility Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GREATER STATE FLEXIBILITY AND INNOVATION 

7 THROUGH MEDICAID COST-SHARING WAIV8 ERS. 

9 Section 1916(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

10 1396o(f)) is amended, in the matter before paragraph (1), 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1166 IH

1 by inserting after ‘‘imposed’’ the following: ‘‘with respect 

2 to individuals who qualify for medical assistance on the 

3 basis of being 65 years of age or older, blind, or disabled’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
April 27, 2015

Mr. Jeffrey Rosen

110 West Main Street #473

Carmel, IN 46032

Dear Mr

. Rosen :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your December 29 , 2014 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

20 14

- 1108 ), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent

does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the

request any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and th e extent of

the relief you seek

.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you m ust send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 4264

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Dan Ngo

Program Analyst, Aircraft and

Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6528

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. GEORGE MARTIN , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Clarksburg

. Irene M. Keeley , Senior District Judge. ( 1:05

- cr - 00021

- IMK

- MJA

- 1 )

Submitted : September 29, 2021 Decided: September 30, 2021

Before WYNN and DIAZ , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. George Martin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: George Martin appeals the district cour t’s order denying his counseled motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194. Upon review of the record , we discern no abuse of discre tion in the district court’s determination that Martin did not establish extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting early release. See United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329

- 31 (4th Cir. 2021) (providing standard of review and outlining steps for evaluating compassionate release motions) , pet. for cert. filed , No. 21

- 5624 (U.S. Sept. 8, 2021) . Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. Martin , No. 1:05

- cr - 00021

- IMK

- MJA

- 1 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 26, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

I, Christopher G. Payan, certify that:

 

| 1.  I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Emerging Vision, Inc.; |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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

 

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

 

4.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

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

 

 (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; 

 

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; 

 

 (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

| Date:       November 14, 2006 |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|

 

 

| /s/ Christopher G. Payan |
|--------------------------|
| Christopher G. Payan     |
| Chief Executive Officer  |
#### Reardon, Respondent, vs. Terrien, Administrator, and others, imp., Appellants. Suenkel, Respondent, vs. Terrien, Administrator, and others, imp., Appellants.

*January 11*

February *6, 1934.*

*268For the appellants there was a brief by *Lloyd D. Mitchell*of Oshkosh, attorney, and *Lamfrom, Tighe, Engellmrd & Peck*of Milwaukee of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Mitchell*and *Mr. A. J. Engelhard.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *Barber, Keefe,' Patri & Horwitz,*attorneys, and *W. Mead Stillman*of counsel, all of Oshkosh, and oral argument by *Mr. Frank B. Keefe*and *Mr. Stillman.*

Fowler, J.

This is a companion case to that of Louis Terrien, administrator of the estate of Clarence Terrien, deceased, v. Mrs. Oscar Roenitz et al., which was argued and submitted herewith *{ante,*p. 263, 252 N. W. 689). The opinion in that case is filed herewith and is referred to for statement of the facts involved. This case was tried to another jury after the other trial. This jury found Mrs. Roenitz guilty of negligence as she was found in the other case. They found the deceased driver not negligent as to driving on the proper side of the road, but found negligence and proximate causation as to speed, lights, control, and spqed in traversing a curve. There was no evidence of contributory negligence. Judgments went against both defend*269ants for the damages assessed by the jury to each plaintiff. The evidence upon the two trials was substantially alike. The only error assigned is that the findings as to the deceased driver’s negligence are not supported by the evidence.

The appellants herein seem to be of opinion that if the findings of the other jury as to the negligence of the deceased driver were correct, those of the jury herein were incorrect, and that from this it follows that if the findings in the other case were supported by the evidence those herein are not. The premise is correct, but the conclusion does not follow. Questions are for the jury to decide when different conclusions may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Counsel for Mrs. Roenitz in the other case contended as strenuously that the findings in the other case were not sufficiently supported as appellants’ counsel herein contend that contrary findings herein are not sufficiently supported, and with as much reason. Had the court, as appellant requested, followed the approved practice of trying the two cases together, of which practice the diverse results of these two trials afford ample justification, the inconsistency between the judgments would have been avoided, but the matter rested in the discretion of the court and we cannot say that there was an abuse of discretion. Further discussion of the case seems unnecessary.

*By the Court.*— The judgments of the circuit court are affirmed.
OMB.1845.0085 

Respondent Type Requirement # of Respondents # of Responses Hours/ResponseTotal Hours Description

Section A: Burden by Affected Entity

Federal Government

Individuals or Households

Private Sector

Not-for profits

 501(c)(3) 34 CFR 682.302 45 45 1.00 45 Reporting

 Eligible Lender Trustees 34 CFR 682.302 0 0 0.00 0 Reporting

 Subsequent changes 34 CFR 682.302 0 0 0.00 0 Reporting

Sub-total 45 45 45

Farms

State, Local, or Tribal Governments

 State Not-For-Profit holders 34 CFR 682.302 24 24 1.00 24 Reporting

Sub-total 24 24 24

Section A Total 69 69 69

Section B: Burden Impact Totals

CURRENT INVENTORY

Current # Respondents 73

Current # of Responses 73

Current Inventory of Hours 73

REVISED INVENTORY

Revised Total # Respondents 69

Revised Total Responses 69

Revised Total Inventory of Hours 69

Total 69 69 69

Difference from Current to Revised -4 -4 -4
Section C: Burden by Regulation Group

Sections 682.302 – Not-for-profit 

holders

 501(c)(3) 34 CFR 682.302 45 45 1.00 45 Reporting

 Eligible Lender Trustees 34 CFR 682.302 0 0 0

 Subsequent changes 34 CFR 682.302 0 0 2.00 0

 State Not-For-Profit holders 24 24 1.00 24 Reporting

Sub-total 69 69 69

Section D: Current Burden, NPRM Burden, Net Burden by Regulation Group

# of Respondents # of Responses Total Hours 

Sections 682.302 - Not-for-profit 

holders

Current Burden 73 73 73

Decreased Burden -4 -4 -4

Revised Burden 69 69 69