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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4305 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide the energy tax 

credit for transformers designed to use soybean-based electrical transformer fluid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2009 

Mr. MEEK of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

the energy tax credit for transformers designed to use 

soybean-based electrical transformer fluid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ENERGY CREDIT FOR TRANSFORMERS DE4 SIGNED TO USE SOYBEAN-BASED ELEC5 TRICAL TRANSFORMER FLUID. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section 

7 48(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 

8 by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (vi), by inserting 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4305 IH

1 ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (vii), and by adding at the end 

2 the following new clause: 

3 ‘‘(viii) an electrical transformer which 

4 is designed to use, and contains, soybean5 based electrical transformer fluid as the in6 sulating fluid,’’. 

7 (b) 30 PERCENT CREDIT FOR REPLACEMENT SOY8 BEAN-BASED ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER FLUID.— 

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 48 

10 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the 

11 following new paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(6) SOYBEAN-BASED ELECTRICAL TRANS13 FORMER FLUID.—For purposes of this subpart, the 

14 term ‘energy property’ includes any soybean-based 

15 electrical transformer fluid— 

16 ‘‘(A) used by the taxpayer as an insulating 

17 fluid in an electrical transformer owned or oper18 ated by the taxpayer, and 

19 ‘‘(B) the original use of which commences 

20 with the taxpayer.’’. 

21 (2) 30 PERCENT CREDIT.—Clause (i) of section 

22 48(a)(2)(A) of such Code is amended by striking 

23 ‘‘and’’ at the end of subclause (III) and by adding 

24 at the end the following new subclause: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4305 IH

1 ‘‘(V) any soybean-based electrical 

2 transformer fluid described in para3 graph (6), and’’. 

4 (c) SOYBEAN-BASED ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER

5 FLUID.—Subsection (c) of section 48 of such Code is 

6 amended by adding at the end the following new para7 graph: 

8 ‘‘(5) SOYBEAN-BASED ELECTRICAL TRANS9 FORMER FLUID.—The term ‘soybean-based electrical 

10 transformer fluid’ means any insulating fluid formu11 lated for use in electrical transformers which— 

12 ‘‘(A) is at least 95 percent soybean oil by 

13 volume, and 

14 ‘‘(B) has received an environmental tech15 nology verification from the Administrator of 

16 the Environmental Protection Agency.’’. 

17 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 this section shall apply to property placed in service in 

19 taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment 

20 of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Nuclear & Uranium

State Nuclear Profiles

Data for 2010 | Release Date: April 26, 2012 | Next Release: To Be Determined | 

State

Net summer 

capacity 

(megawatts) Rank

Net generation 

(thousand 

megawatthours) Rank

Alabama 5,043 5 37,941 7

Arizona 3,937 12 31,200 11

Arkansas 1,835 19 15,023 19

California 4,390 8 32,201 10

Connecticut 2,103 18 16,750 17

Florida 3,924 13 23,936 15

Georgia 4,061 10 33,512 8

Illinois 11,441 1 96,190 1

Iowa 601 31 4,451 31

Kansas 1,160 27 9,556 26

Louisiana 2,142 16 18,639 16

Maryland 1,705 20 13,994 20

Massachusetts 685 29 5,918 29

Michigan 3,947 11 29,625 12

Minnesota 1,594 21 13,478 21

Mississippi 1,251 23 9,643 25

Missouri 1,190 26 8,996 28

Nebraska 1,245 25 11,054 23

New 

Hampshire

1,247 24 10,910 24

New Jersey 4,108 9 32,771 9

New York 5,271 4 41,870 4

North Carolina 4,958 7 40,740 6

Ohio 2,134 17 15,805 18

Pennsylvania 9,540 2 77,828 2

South Carolina 6,486 3 51,988 3

Tennessee 3,401 15 27,739 13

Texas 4,966 6 41,335 5

Vermont 620 30 4,782 30

Virginia 3,501 14 26,572 14

Washington 1,097 28 9,241 27

Wisconsin 1,584 22 13,281 22

State Nuclear Profiles - Energy Information Administration Page 1 of 1

http://www.eia.gov/nuclear/state/ 8/1/2015
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of
August 2, 2010 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2010-B (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the
closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by General Motors Financial Company, Inc. (f/k/a AmeriCredit Corp.), AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the Servicer) and AFS SenSub Corp. in
connection therewith. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that
I am the Executive Vice President, Accounting Corporate Controller of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the
fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     |  |  |  |                      
|------------------------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------
|AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. |  |  |  |                      
|                                     |  | 
|By: /s/ Connie
Coffey                |  |  |  | Dated: March 28, 2014
|Connie Coffey                        |  |  |  |                      
|Executive Vice President,            |  |  |  |                      
|Accounting Corporate Controller      |  |  |  |
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4208 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the limitation 

on the reduction in fair market value of real property used for farming, 

or in another trade or business, for purposes of estate taxes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 3, 2009 

Mr. PERRIELLO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the limitation on the reduction in fair market value of 

real property used for farming, or in another trade or 

business, for purposes of estate taxes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AGGREGATE REDUCTION IN FAIR 

4 MARKET VALUE ALLOWED UNDER SPECIAL 

5 USE VALUATION. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2032A(a) of such Code is 

7 amended— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4208 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘$750,000’’ in paragraph (2) 

2 and inserting ‘‘$3,500,000’’, 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘1998’’ in paragraph (3) and in4 serting ‘‘2010’’, 

5 (3) by striking ‘‘$750,000’’ in paragraph (3) 

6 and inserting ‘‘$3,500,000’’, and 

7 (4) by striking ‘‘1997’’ in paragraph (3) and in8 serting ‘‘2009’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall apply to estates of decedents dying after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
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 Quarterly Report of OSK Capital III Corp(the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period  ending June 30, 2004 (the  "Report"),
I,  Frank L. Kramer, Chief  Financial  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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.



/s/
-----------------------
Frank L. Kramer
Treasurer, Secretary, Director and
Chief Financial Officer
August 2, 2004
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-152288, 333-88568, 333-31414 and333-34411) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-132208, 333-85606, and 333-40230) on Form S-8 of Velocity Express Corporation and subsidiaries, of our report dated October 14, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule ofVelocity Express Corporation included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 28, 2008. 

 

/s/ UHY LLP 

 

Hartford, Connecticut 

October 14, 2008
### Siloxanes ECA Meeting Agenda

Thursday, September 20 , 2012

1 :00

- 4:00 PM EST

Location: Room 1117A, EPA East,

1201 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC 20460

Teleconference: (866) 299

- 3188; code: (202) 564

- 4760

Discuss EPA’s revised siloxanes monitoring proposal (9

- 6

- 12 version). Interested parties will be

given an opportunity to provide feedback. D etermine if a consensus can be reached by the

interested parties on each of the three major pa rts of the proposal: direct discharge sites, indirect

discharge sites, and POTWs.

Agenda:

I. Introduction s , Ward Penberthy, EPA (10 minutes)

II. EPA Siloxane Monitoring Proposal (9

- 6

- 12 version)

A. POTWs (30 minutes)

B. Direct discharge sites: (30 minutes)

C. Indirect discharge sites: (30 minutes)

D. Sampling details for all sites: direct, indirect, and POTWs (30 minutes)

III. Stakeholder Input (30 minutes)

IV. Next steps (15 minutes)

V. Adjourn

Discussion times are approximate. For further information, please contact Marcus Aguilar at

(202) 564

- 3194 or aguilar.marcus@epa.gov
**Exhibit 21.1**

**Subsidiaries of Kensey Nash Corporation**

Kensey Nash Holding Company 

A Delaware Corporation 

108 Webster Building 

3411 Silverside Road 

Wilmington, DE 19810 

Kensey Nash BVF Technology LLC 

A Delaware Corporation 

108 Webster Building 

3411 Silverside Road 

Wilmington, DE 19801 

Kensey Nash Closure Technology LLC 

A Delaware Corporation 

108 Webster Building 

3411 Silverside Road 

Wilmington, DE 19801 

Kensey Nash CRD Technology LLC 

A Delaware Corporation 

108 Webster Building 

3411 Silverside Road 

Wilmington, DE 19801 

Kensey Nash ECM Technology LLC 

A Delaware Corporation 

108 Webster Building 

3411 Silverside Road 

Wilmington, DE 19801 

ILT Acquisition Sub, Inc. 

A Delaware Corporation 

Corporation Trust Center 

1209 Orange Street 

Wilmington, DE 19801 

MacroPore Acquisition Sub, Inc. 

A Delaware Corporation 

Corporation Trust Center 

1209 Orange Street 

Wilmington, DE 19801
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4194 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualifying law school 

students participating in legal clinics or externships from the application 

of the conflict of interest rules under section 205 of such title. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 3, 2009 

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualifying 

law school students participating in legal clinics or 

externships from the application of the conflict of interest 

rules under section 205 of such title. 

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 ‘‘Law Student Clinic 

5 Participation Act of 2009’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4194 IH

1 SEC. 2. LAW STUDENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXEMP2 TION. 

3 Section 205 of title 18, United States Code, is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(j) Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to a law 

6 student or legal clinic staff member participating in the 

7 legal clinic or externship of an accredited law school, with 

8 respect to a matter within the scope of the clinic or 

9 externship, unless— 

10 ‘‘(1) the student or staff has participated per11 sonally and substantially in the matter as a Govern12 ment employee or special Government employee 

13 through decision, approval, disapproval, rec14 ommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, 

15 or otherwise; or 

16 ‘‘(2) the matter is pending in the department or 

17 agency of the Government in which the student is 

18 serving.’’. 

19 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

20 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 

21 take effect upon the expiration of the 60-day period begin22 ning on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Larry Wayne BURKS *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 73-67

498 S.W. 2d 336

Opinion delivered September 4, 1973

*James R. Howard*and *Howard, Howard ir Howard,*for appellant.

*24
      *Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *Richard Mattison,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Frank Holt, Justice.

Appellant was found guilty of robbery by the trial court, sitting as a jury, and a 10-year penitentiary sentence was imposed. When the state rested its case, the appellant offered no testimony and moved for a directed verdict of not guilty which the court refused. On appeal appellant’s only contention, through court appointed counsel, is that the court erred in its denial of the motion. We hold that the court was correct.

The thrust of appellant’s argument is primarily directed toward insufficient identification. The victim of the robbery, a 72-year-old semi-retired mechanic, testified that the appellant and a companion came into his garage and asked for some bolts for a mechanical unit. On direct examination the victim identified the appellant as the one who “shoved the gun in my side” and demanded his money. Appellant then struck him with the gun and removed his billfold and its contents ($100-$120) from his pocket. The robber and his companion fled and were apprehended a few minutes later in the vicinity by the police. On cross-examination the victim testified that, although he could not “make a positive identification,” the appellant resembled the individual who robbed him since he was the same size and height. The victim further answered that he had previously identified appellant in a lineup procedure on the afternoon of the robbery. The appellant admitted in his own uncontradicted handwritten statement that he was present at the scene of the alleged offense, although he denied being a participant.

It is a well established rule that a directed verdict is proper only when no fact issue exists and on appeal we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the ap-pellee and affirm if there is any substantial evidence. *Parker*v. *State,*252 Ark. 1242, 482 S.W. 2d 822 (1972). In the case at bar a factual issue existed and the evidence is amply substantial to support the verdict.

Affirmed.
Order entered October 5, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01597-CV

CARL “STACEY” NEESE, ET AL., Appellants

V.

TED B. LYON, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court

Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1-13-61

ORDER

Appellees’ Motion for Leave to Correct Typographical Error in Pending Motion for 

Rehearing, and Motion for Reconsideration En Banc is GRANTED as follows. In considering 

the pending motion for rehearing and the pending motion for reconsideration en banc, the Court 

will consider the typographical error identified in the Motion for Leave as having been corrected. 

Appellees need not file a corrected motion for rehearing or a corrected motion for 

reconsideration en banc.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
<PAGE>
 
SULLIVAN BROADCASTING HOLDINGS, INC.
(IN THOUSANDS)                                                      EXHIBIT 12.1


<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                             1992       1993       1994       1995       1996
                                           ========   ========   ========   ========   ======== 
<S>                                        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C> 
EARNINGS:
 Income (Loss) before provision
  for income taxes, effect of
  accounting change and
  extraordinary item                        (13,809)    (2,595)     7,878     17,581    (32,446)

FIXED CHARGES:
 Interest expense, including
  amortization of debt discount and
  deferred debt issuance costs               18,141     17,648     18,587     17,777     41,187

INTEREST COMPONENT OF RENTAL EXPENSE:
 30% of rent expense                            208        187        191        207        225
                                           --------   --------   --------   --------   -------- 
TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                          18,349     17,835     18,778     17,984     41,412
                                           ========   ========   ========   ========   ======== 
EARNINGS                                      4,540     15,240     26,656     35,565      8,966
                                           ========   ========   ========   ========   ======== 

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES               --         --        1.4        2.0         --
                                           ========   ========   ========   ========   ======== 
DEFICIT OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES        (13,809)    (2,595)        --         --    (32,446)
                                           ========   ========   ========   ========   ======== 
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

1

IN THE MATTER OF: 1

i CASE No.

THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE 1

WARRANTS, APPLICATIONS, PEN j CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REGISTERS, AND NON- \ ELIZABETH A. PRESTON-DEAVERS

DISCLOSURE ORDERS IN THE |

CASES LISTED IN ATTACHMENT |

A

FILED UNDER SEAL

ORDER TO UNSEAL

Upon the Motion ofthe United States Attorney and for good cause shown, it is

ORDERED that the Search and Seizure Warrants, Applications, Pen Registers, and NonDisclosure Orders and related documents in the cases listed in Attachment A in the above-entitled

matter, be unsealed.

Case: 2:17-mj-00679-CMV Doc #: 17 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 51
ATTACHMENT A:

2:17-l\/lJ-434 2:18-MJ-007 2:18-MJ-756 2:19-MJ-001 2:19-MJ-471

2:17-MJ-585 2;18-MJ-8 2:18-MJ-840 2;19-MJ-45 2:19-MJ-481

2;17-MJ-586 2:18-MJ-9 2:19-MJ-121 2:19-MJ-498

2:17-MJ-587 2:18-MJ-10 2:19-MJ-122 2:19-MJ-510

2:17-MJ-588 2:18-MJ-17 2:19-MJ-127 2:19-MJ-512

2:17-MJ-589 2;18-MJ-51 2:19-MJ-153 2:19-MJ-527

2:17-MJ-617 2:18-MJ-61 2:19-MJ-174 2:19-MJ-528

2:17-MJ-644 2:18-MJ-92 2:19-MJ-175 2:19-MJ-553

2:17-MJ-676 2:lS-MJ-205 2:19-MJ -191 2:19-MJ-560

2:17-MJ-677 2:18-MJ-213 2:19-MJ-255 2;19-MJ-561

2:17-MJ-678 2:18-MJ-232 2:19-MJ-265 2:19-MJ-562

2:17-MJ-679 2:18-MJ-326 2:19-MJ-266 2;19-MJ-563

2:17-MJ-696 2;18-MJ-355 2:19-MJ-272 2:19-MJ-564

2:17-MJ-713 2:18-MJ-379 2:19-MJ-273 2:19-MJ-570

2;17-MJ-714 2:18-MJ-397 2:19-MJ-276

2;17-MJ-715 2:18-MJ-398 2:19-MJ-290

2;17-MJ-747 2:18-MJ-404 2:19-MJ-291

2;17-MJ-758 2:18-MJ-411 2:19-MJ-320

2;17-MJ-759 2:18-MJ-429 2:19-MJ-348

2:17-MJ-761 2:18-MJ-434 2:19-MJ-349

2:17-MJ-762 2:18-MJ-460 2:19-MJ-379

2:17-MJ-782 2:18-MJ-498 2:19-MJ-414

2:17-MJ-791 2:18-MJ-512

2:18-MJ-515

2:18-MJ-532

2:19-MJ-460

Case: 2:17-mj-00679-CMV Doc #: 17 Filed: 01/29/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 52
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4254 

To direct amounts derived from the repayment of TARP assistance to the 

Deposit Insurance Fund of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

to reduce the amount of any increase in premiums that would otherwise 

be required of smaller insured depository institutions and community 

banks whose prudent activities did not contribute to the financial crisis, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 9, 2009 

Ms. KAPTUR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To direct amounts derived from the repayment of TARP 

assistance to the Deposit Insurance Fund of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation to reduce the amount of 

any increase in premiums that would otherwise be required of smaller insured depository institutions and 

community banks whose prudent activities did not contribute to the financial crisis, 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, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4254 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Community Bank 

3 Preservation Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REDIRECTION OF REPAYMENT OF TARP ASSIST5 ANCE TO THE DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND. 

6 Subsection (d) of section 106 of the Emergency Eco7 nomic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5216(d)) is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘shall be paid’’ and all that follows 

9 through the end of the sentence and inserting ‘‘shall be 

10 transferred to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

11 and deposited in the Deposit Insurance Fund to be used 

12 to reduce the amount of any increase in premiums that 

13 would otherwise be required of smaller insured depository 

14 institutions and community banks whose prudent activities 

15 did not contribute to the financial crisis’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28583]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 5, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 17, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 128 
to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2022-33, CP2022-40.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2021-28583 Filed 1-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P