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

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 6203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02293]

[[Page 6203]]

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-528-529 and 731-TA-1264-1268 (Review)]

Uncoated Paper From Australia, Brazil, China, Indonesia, and 
Portugal

Determinations

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the countervailing duty orders on uncoated 
paper from China and Indonesia and the antidumping duty orders on 
uncoated paper from Australia, Brazil, China, Indonesia, and Portugal 
would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material 
injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably 
foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in Sec.  207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on February 1, 2021 (86 FR 
7734) and determined on May 7, 2021, that it would conduct full reviews 
(86 FR 27650, May 21, 2021). Notice of the scheduling of the 
Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection 
therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and 
by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on July 23, 2021 (86 
FR 39057). The Commission conducted its hearing on November 18, 2021. 
All persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to 
participate.
    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determinations in these reviews on January 31, 2022. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5275 (January 2022), 
entitled Uncoated Paper from Australia, Brazil, China, Indonesia, and 
Portugal: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-528-529 and 731-TA-1264-1268 
(Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: January 31, 2022.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022-02293 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
```
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Frank COLEMAN and Wanda Coleman, Appellees.

No. 1D17-224

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 11.1
SED INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.
AND SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE (1)
                                                                 

                                                                         YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,
                                                             1996               1997                1998
<S>                                                       <C>                <C>                 <C>
BASIC EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE:
 Weighted average outstanding shares                       7,190,000          7,183,000            9,602,000
                                                          ----------         ----------          -----------

  Net earnings (loss) for per share computation (A)       $5,550,000         $7,905,000          $  (255,000)
                                                          ----------         ----------          -----------

  Net earnings (loss) per common share                    $     0.77         $     1.10          $     (0.03)
                                                          ----------         ----------

DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE:
 Average outstanding shares, including common stock
 equivalents(2)(B)                                         7,280,000          7,634,000             9,602,000
                                                          ----------         ----------          ------------

  Net earnings (loss) per common share (A divided by B)   $     0.76         $     1.04          $      (0.03)
                                                          ----------         ----------          ------------
</TABLE>

1    Effective October 1, 1997, the Company adopted Statement of
     Financial Accounting Standards Number ("SFAS") 128.  All prior
     period earnings per share data has been restated to conform with
     SFAS 128. 

2    Average shares outstanding include dilutive stock options as
     common stock equivalents.  The dilutive effect of stock options
     was determined using the treasury stock method.  Under that
     method of calculation, stock options are valued at average market
     prices.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 99.1

                   CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of ISP Chemco Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarterly  period ended September 29, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  Sunil
Kumar,  as President  and Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  and Neal E.
Murphy,  as Senior Vice  President and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,
each hereby certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that,  to the best of his
knowledge and belief:

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

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



  /s/ Sunil Kumar
------------------------------------
Name: Sunil Kumar
Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:   November 13, 2002



  /s/ Neal E. Murphy
----------------------------------
Name: Neal E. Murphy
Title:   Senior Vice President and
           Chief Financial Officer

Date:   November 13, 2002

     This  certification  accompanies  the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Matthews *v.*Powers.

4-8815

218 S. W. 2d 378

Opinion delivered March 21, 1949.

*882
      *Floyd Terral,*for appellant.

*G. W.*Shepherd, for appellee.

GrRiNMN Smith, Chief Justice.

Archie and Essie Matthews, acting through their attorney, Floyd Terral, brought suit in unlawful detainer October 18, 1948, the statutory notice for three days having been served October 12. Pope’s Digest, § 6035. Bond was executed, after which the defendant Powers continued to occupy the premises under a retaining bond.

October 20th Powers moved to dismiss the cause, asserting that after receipt of the notice and before expiration of the three-day period, an offer was made to pay the rent.

October 22d the Court, while endeavoring to ascertain the facts upon which the defense was based, allowed witnesses to testify. The plaintiffs objected to a procedure thought by Mr. Terral to be irregular and prejudicial, and when overruled he declined to participate further in the hearing.

Since the case had not been set for trial, the motion to dismiss should have been treated as a demurrer to the complaint, and as such overruled. A cause of action was stated and the plaintiffs were entitled to a jury trial. In the judgment the Court found “as a matter of fact” that Powers tendered all rents that were due. The record does not justify a determination that appellants waived a jury.

Reversed.
<PAGE>   1
                                  Exhibit 23.1


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.'s
33-16409, 33-38259 and 33-78614 of Shorewood Packaging Corporation each on Form
S-8 and to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-3671
of Shorewood Packaging Corporation on Form S-3 of our report dated June 4, 1997,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Shorewood Packaging Corporation
for the 53 weeks ended May 3, 1997.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

New York, New York
July 29, 1997




                                 Page 56 of 56
Reallocation of Slots at Ronald Reagan

 Washington National Airport 

and LaGuardia Airport

FINAL

(with Bidder ID Assignments)

12/2/2011 10:08 AM

Updated as of : 5:00 PM 22-Nov-2011

BIDDER

BID 

AMOUNT

WHEN BID 

PLACED

0 $0.00 0900 14-Nov-2011

JetBlue Airlines $1.00 12:04 PM 22-Nov-2011

Southwest Airlines $2.00 2:06 PM 22-Nov-2011

Allegiant Air $5,000,000.00 3:30 PM 22-Nov-2011

Frontier Airlines $10.00 3:54 PM 22-Nov-2011

Sun Country Airlines $80,000.00 4:07 PM 22-Nov-2011

WestJet Airlines $17,600,001.00 4:11 PM 22-Nov-2011

JetBlue Airlines $32,000,050.01 4:17 PM 22-Nov-2011

Southwest Airlines $13,040,224.00 4:19 PM 22-Nov-2011

Sun Country Airlines $800,000.00 4:32 PM 22-Nov-2011

Spirit Airlines $2,250,009.00 4:37 PM 22-Nov-2011

LGA BUNDLE B BIDS
IA 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 9 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit 

the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve to four 

in the House of Representatives and two in the Senate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2021 

Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH submitted the following joint resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to limit the number of terms that a Member 

of Congress may serve to four in the House of Representatives and two in the Senate. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 9 IH 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 for ratification: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person who has served four terms 

5 as a Representative shall be eligible for election to the 

6 House of Representatives. Any period during which a per7 son serves as a Representative pursuant to an election to 

8 fill a vacancy shall not be included as a term served by 

9 the person for purposes of this section. 

10 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person who has served two terms 

11 as a Senator shall be eligible for election or appointment 

12 to the Senate. For purposes of this section, any period 

13 during which a person serves as a Senator pursuant to 

14 an election or appointment to fill a vacancy shall not be 

15 included as a term served by the person for purposes of 

16 this section. 

17 ‘‘SECTION 3. No term beginning before the date of 

18 the ratification of this article shall be taken into account 

19 in determining eligibility for election or appointment under 

20 this article.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 99
                             Selected Information
                    Relating to Series 1992-1 Certificates,
            Series 1992-2 Certificates, Series 1994-1 Certificates,
            Series 1995-1 Certificates, Series 1996-1 Certificates
             and Series 1996-2 Certificates from January 1, 1996
                             through September 30, 1996
                    ----------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

           Series 1992-1    Series 1992-2    Series 1994-1    Series 1995-1  
           6 7/8% Auto      7 3/8% Auto      Floating Rate    6.50% Auto
           Loan Asset       Loan Asset       Loan Asset       Loan Asset
           Backed           Backed           Backed           Backed 
           Certificates     Certificates     Certificates     Certificates 
           ------------     ------------     ------------     ------------   



<S>        <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>            


Interest
Paid       $ 45,833,333.36  $ 38,718,749.97  $ 43,809,693.34  $ 48,861,111.60

Servicing
Fee Paid   $  7,499,999.97  $  5,249,999.97  $  7,499,999.97  $  7,499,999.97





           Series 1996-1    Series 1996-2     
           5.50% Auto       Floating Rate    
           Loan Asset       Loan Asset        
           Backed           Backed            
           Certificates     Certificates     
           ------------     ------------

Interest   $ 28,477,777.79  $ 34,900,266.66
Paid

Servicing  $  5,200,000.01  $  6,240,000.00
Fee Paid      





</TABLE>

                                    -20-
Nathan WHEELER, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Child Support Program and Brittney Johnson, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1893

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AUGUST 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CORY J. HOLMES, § § No. 378, 2016 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID No. 0901020659 (N) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. §

Submitted: November 17, 2017 Decided: January 30, 2018

Before VAUGHN

, SEITZ , and TRAYNOR , Justices.

ORDER

This 30 th day of January 2018, after consider ation of the parties’ briefs and

the record on appeal, we conclude that th e Superior Court’s summary dismissal of

the appellant’s second motion for postconvic tion relief should be affirmed. The

Superior Court did not err when determining that th e appellant’s ineffective

assistance of postconviction counsel clai ms were subject to the procedural

requirements of Superior C ourt Criminal Rule 61(d)(2). *

* See, e.g., Durham v. State , 2017 WL 5450746, at *2 (Del. Nov. 13, 2017) (holding that appellant had to satisfy requirements of Rule 61(d)(2) to avoid summary dismissal of second postconviction motion, even if he did not have a previous opportunity to raise ine ffective assistance of postconviction counsel claims (citing Younger v. State , 580 A.2d 552, 554 (Del. 1990))); Coles v. State , 2017 WL 3259697 (Del. July 31, 2017); Jones v. State , 2017 WL 4535974 (Del. Oct. 10, 2017).2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED th at the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE OURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ozay RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4456

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2017

Decided: September 6, 2017

Richard C. Speaks, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ozay Richardson appeals the district court’s amended judgment resentencing him to 120 months in prison and three years of supervised release based on *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). On appeal, Richardson contends that his attorney was ineffective by not challenging his six-level sentence enhancement under U.S. *174Sentencing_Guidelines_Manual § 3A1.2(c)(1). We affirm.

“Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record, such claims are not addressed on direct appeal.” *United States v. Faulls,*821 F.3d 502, 507-08 (4th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). A defense attorney should be given an opportunity to address the reasons for his or her action or inaction, and the record should be more fully developed, before addressing this issue. *See United States v. DeFusco,*949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir. 1991). We have reviewed the record and conclude that there is no conclusive evidence of ineffective assistance on the face of this record. Therefore, Richardson’s claim “should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” *Faulls,*821 F.3d at 508 (citation omitted).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
STATE of Florida, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Nicholas CAUSEY, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 1D16-2122

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX-4(B)






Exhibit 4(b)




First Amendment to the

Huntington Supplemental Stock Purchase and Tax Savings Plan




Background





	A.	 	Huntington Bancshares Incorporated (the “Company”) maintains the Huntington Supplemental
Stock Purchase and Tax Savings Plan (the “Plan”).






	B.	 	Section 8.1 of the Plan gives the Company the power and authority to amend or terminate the
Plan at any time.






	C.	 	The Company desires to amend the Plan to clarify how contributions will be made to the Plan
and to eliminate supplemental matching contributions.





Amendment



This amendment shall supersede the provisions of the Plan to the extent those provisions are
inconsistent with the provisions of this amendment, effective March 6, 2009.





	1.	 	Section 2.9 of the Plan shall be amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:
	 
		 	2.9 Supplemental Account shall mean the balance posted to the record of each
Participant or Beneficiary and as adjusted as of each Valuation Date, less any payments
therefrom.
	 
	2.	 	Section 2.11 shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
	 
		 	2.11 Reserved.
	 
	3.	 	The first paragraph of Section 3.1 shall be amended in its entirety, effective March
6, 2009, as follows:
	 
		 	3.1 Supplemental Pre-Tax Contributions. Each Eligible Employee may elect to
have all or any portion of the Pre-Tax Contributions (matched or unmatched) that he
elected to defer under the Qualified Plan, but which cannot be allocated to his
Pre-Tax Contribution account under such plan for the Plan Year because the Employee
has (a) made the maximum elective deferrals under Internal Revenue Code Section
402(g), (b) exceeded the annual limitation on the amount of Compensation that can be
considered for purposes of contributions to the Qualified Plan, or (c) exceeded the
maximum elective contributions under the terms of the Qualified Plan, allocated to his
Supplemental Account under this Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, effective only
for the 2009 Plan Year, elective deferrals under the Qualified Plan that are not




 








 






	 	 	contributed to the Qualified Plan so that the Qualified Plan may satisfy the Actual
Deferral Percentage test will be returned to the Participant and not contributed to
this Plan.
	 
	4.	 	Section 3.2 of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:
	 
		 	3.2. Reserved.
	 
	5.	 	The sixth sentence in Section 3.4 of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety.
	 
	6.	 	The remainder of the Plan shall remain unchanged.




The Company has caused this First Amendment to be executed on its behalf, by its officer
duly authorized, this 17th day of February, 2009.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Huntington Bancshares Incorporated

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Sarah Hall
 	 
	 	 	Its:   SVP
Amber ARNESEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-894

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-22-0000039

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

SUN CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Hawaii corporation, Claimant-Appellee,

v. MICHELLE MITCHELL, M.D.; HAWAII FAMILY HEALTH, INC.,

a domestic corporation, Respondents-Appellants, and

HAWAII NATIONAL BANK, an unincorporated association,

Respondent-Appellee, and JOHN DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS,

PARTNERSHIPS AND OTHER ENTITIES 1-10, Respondents

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 3CML-19-0000003)

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO DISMISS APPEAL

(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Chan, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the Proposed Stipulation for

Dismissal of Appeal (Stipulation), filed November 14, 2022, by

Claimant-Appellee Sun Construction, Inc., Respondents-Appellants

Michelle Mitchell, M.D. and Hawaii Family Health, Inc., and

Respondent-Appellee Hawaii National Bank, the papers in support,

and the record, it appears that (1) the appeal has been docketed;

(2) the parties stipulate to dismiss the appeal with prejudice

and bear their own attorneys' fees and costs, under Hawai i Rules

of Appellate Procedure Rule 42(b); and (3) the Stipulation is

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-22-0000039

16-DEC-2022

07:50 AM

Dkt. 61 OAWST
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

dated and signed by counsel for all parties appearing in the

appeal.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulation is

approved, and the appeal is dismissed with prejudice. The

parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, December 16, 2022.

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Presiding Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen

Associate Judge

/s/ Derrick H.M. Chan

Associate Judge

2
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1199 

To authorize the Secretary of State to waive certain requirements with respect 

to eligibility for civil service positions relating to the departmental formulation and direction of foreign affairs and international relations, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 22, 2021 

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

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of State to waive certain requirements with respect to eligibility for civil service positions 

relating to the departmental formulation and direction 

of foreign affairs and international relations, 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 ‘‘Supporting Technical 

5 Experts in Managing Diplomacy Act’’ or the ‘‘STEM Di6 plomacy Act’’. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1199 IH

1 SEC. 2. WAIVER AUTHORITY FOR OCCUPATIONAL REQUIRE2 MENTS. 

3 The Secretary of State may waive any or all of the 

4 individual occupational requirements with respect to an 

5 employee or prospective employee of the Department of 

6 State for a civilian position categorized under the GS– 

7 0130 occupational series if the Secretary determines that 

8 the individual possesses significant scientific, techno9 logical, engineering, or mathematical expertise that is inte10 gral to performing the duties of the applicable position, 

11 based on demonstrated job performance and qualifying ex12 perience. With respect to each waiver granted under this 

13 section, the Secretary shall set forth in a written document 

14 that is transmitted to the Director of the Office of Per15 sonnel Management the rationale for the decision of the 

16 Secretary to waive such requirements. 

Æ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS