alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>5
<MULTIPLIER>1,000
       



<S>                                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                        24,154
<SECURITIES>                                                  13,349
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 33,544
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     591
<INVENTORY>                                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              77,499
<PP&E>                                                        20,746
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 9,078
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               114,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         19,599
<BONDS>                                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                         118
<OTHER-SE>                                                    93,377
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 114,485
<SALES>                                                       24,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              24,800
<CGS>                                                          9,444
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  9,444
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              16,107
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              (344)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 (407)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      93
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             (500)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    (500)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                  (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  (0.04)
        


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# 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:*                         March 7, 2022.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on March 1, 2022, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 736 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2022-44, CP2022-50.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2022-04774 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Personal Communication between Matt LaPenta (Abt Associates) and David Smith (Evergreen 

Engineering) – August 31, 2009

Additional cost of using PVA resin in HWPW mills

The added cost of converting from UF to PVA resin depends on the glue spread, the thickness of the 

finished panel, and how the production volume is accounted.

For example, 3-Ply mills apply only 2 glue lines; to adhere the Face and the Back. The weight of each 

glue line is about 30 pounds per thousand square feet. The cost of PVA is about $.50 more per 

pound than UF. So, the extra cost of using PVA can be estimated as:

(30#/msf of glue line) x (2 glue lines) x ($.50/# higher cost)

= $30 higher cost/msf of panel

Then,

If the average panel made by 3-Ply mills is 5/8 thick, and HWPW production volume is accounted 

on a 3/8” basis:

($30/msf panel) x (.625”/.375”) = $50/msf, 3/8” basis
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben Antonio Santana PIMENTA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-16813 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 1, 2017)

Wifredo A. Ferrer, Emily M. Smachetti, Karen Olivia-Marie Stewart, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jose Rafael Rodriguez, appointed counsel for Ruben Santana Pimenta in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Santana Pimenta’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
#### Jimmy Fletcher MEDERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, GEORGIA DIAGNOSTIC PRISON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 14-14178-P & 15-14734-P

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Date Filed: 10/26/2017

James K. Jenkins, Maloy Jenkins Parker, Boulder, CO, Andru H. Volinsky, Bernstein Shur, Manchester, NH, for Petitioner-Appellant

Sabrina Graham, Beth Attaway Burton, Attorney General’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: HULL, MARCUS and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

On October 17, 2017, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the September 29, 2017 order (that denied the motion to file substitute brief as moot). The Court construes that October 17, 2017 motion as *915a new motion to substitute the new brief filed on October 17, 2017 for the original brief filed on September 25, 2017, grants Appellant’s motion, and allows Appellant’s October 17, 2017 brief to be substituted.
#### IN RE: Adina ZAHARESCU, Debtor. Satish Shetty, Appellant, v. Ocwen Financial Services, Inc.; et al., Appellees.

No. 14-55401

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 24, 2017

Satish Shetty, Pro Se

Eric D. Houser, Attorney, Robert W. Norman, Jr., Attorney, Houser & Allison, APC, Irvine, CA, for Appellees Ocwen Financial Services, Inc., Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Litton Loan Servicing, LP

Eric D. Houser, Attorney, Robert W. Norman, Jr., Attorney, Houser & Allison, APC, Irvine, CA, Kevin Broersma, Attor*825ney, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Satish Shetty appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing- claims against appellees in Shetty’s adversary proceeding. We review de novo our own jurisdiction and whether a bankruptcy court’s decision is final. *Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs (In re City of Desert Hot Springs),*339 F.3d 782, 787 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss.

This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because “the bankruptcy court’s order did not dispose of all of the issues in the adversary proceeding” or “direct entry of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) which applies to adversary proceedings in bankruptcy by virtue of Bankruptcy Rule 7054.” *Walther v. King City Transit Mix, Inc. (In re King City Transit Mix, Inc.),*738 F.2d 1065, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 1984) .(appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy extends only to matters appealable to the district court as of right).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Bridget Myers, Resp’t, *v.*Daniel Hunt, Ex’r, App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed May 11, 1891).*

Evidence—Code Civ. Pito., § 829.

Upon a reference of a disputed claim upon a note purporting to have been made by defendant’s testator, the claimant was allowed to testify that deceased had never paid the note, principal or interest. *Meld,*that this was a personal transaction with the deceased, and was inadmissible under § 829 of the Code.

Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff.

*Arthur T. Hoffman, (John H. Clapp*and *Jarvis W. Mason*of counsel), for *app’lt; Chas. H. Noxon,*for resp’t.

*740Barnard, P. J.

Bridget Myers presented a claim against the estate of Harrison Hunt, deceased. The claim is based upon what purports to be a note given by deceased to the plaintiff April 1, 1884, for $750. The claim was referred under the statute, and the referee has reported in favor of the entire claim, with interest, from the date of the note. The proof of the transaction out of which the note arose, was not given. The maker of the note is dead, and the holder cannot testify under § 829 of the Code as to a personal transaction with the deceased. Proof was given of the handwriting of deceased to the note. It is quite uncertain. The witnesses spoke very hesitatingly. The executor produced several witnesses who testify that the signature to the note was not made by deceased. The testator died about the last of 1889, or the beginning of 1890, apparently, and the note shows that no interest was endorsed upon it. Under this evidence the finding of the referee would be one of fact and not properly reversible on appeal.

The claimant, however, was permitted to testify under the defendant’s objection and exception that the deceased had never paid the note, principal or interest. This was a personal transaction with the deceased, and was admitted erroneously. *Lerche*v. *Brasher,*104 N. Y, 160 ; 4 N. Y. State Rep., 335 ; *Clift*v. *Moses, 112 N.*Y, 426 ; 21 N. Y. State Rep., 777.

The evidence may have affected the result. The case was very doubtful on the evidence of handwriting and on the circumstances surrounding the claim. This plaintiff was not rich, and was in debt, and no effort seems to have been made to collect the note during testator’s lifetime.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial had at the circuit, .with costs to abide event.

Dykman and Pratt, JJ., concur.
#### George W. Rathbun 2d, Respondent, *v.*The Northern Central Railway Company, Appellant.

A foreign railway corporation cannot claim the benefit of the statute of limitations of this State in an action of which the courts of this State have jurisdiction, although it has before the commencement of the action for the time specified in the statute continuously operated and carried on a railroad in this State, having a large amount of property for all that time within the State and having a managing agent resident therein.

(Submitted June 12, 1872;

decided June 20, 1872.)

This action was commenced in August, 1869, to recover damages for injuries received by plaintiff when a passenger on the railroad of defendant, a corporation chartered by the State of Pennsylvania, from a disaster thereon in June, 1863, caused by the alleged negligence of defendant’s agents and employes.

The answer alleged that for more than six years prior to the action the defendant was the lessee of a railroad in New York, running from the northern line of Pennsylvania to the city of Elmira, N. Y., and had property within this State and a managing agent of the demised railway and property residing at Elmira, who kept an office of the Northern Central Railway Company; therefore claiming that the action did not accrue within six years before suit brought.

To this answer the plaintiff interposed a demurrer, in substance that defendant being a foreign corporation the statute of limitations did not apply. Upon argument the demurrer was overruled at Special Term. On appeal to General Term, this order was reversed and judgment directed on the demurrer.

Afterward the cause was tried before the court without a jury, and judgment rendered and perfected for the plaintiff for $2,500 with costs, which on appeal was affirmed by the General Term of the second judicial department. *Held,*that defendant could not claim the benefit of the statute of limitations and that the demurrer to answer was properly sustained.

*657
      *George M. Dvven*for the appellant.

*George W. Hatlibun*for the respondent.

Folgeb, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
H. R. 6852 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To designate Holcombe Rucker Park, in Harlem, New York, as a National Commemorative Site, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Holcombe Rucker Park National 

Commemorative Site Act’’. 

SEC. 2. NATIONAL COMMEMORATIVE SITE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—Holcombe Rucker Park, in Harlem, New 

York, is hereby designated as the ‘‘Holcombe Rucker Park National 

Commemorative Site’’ (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Commemorative Site’’). 

(b) ADMINISTRATION.— 

(1) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary of the 

Interior may enter into cooperative agreements with appropriate public or private entities, including the Mayor of New 

York City or the Mayor’s designee, for interpretive and educational purposes related to the Commemorative Site, including 

installing a plaque, interpretive exhibit, or other marker, as 

appropriate, at the Commemorative Site, with the written consent of the owner of the Commemorative Site, to memorialize 

the achievements of Holcombe Rucker and to provide recognition of the historic role of Holcombe Rucker Park in the development of the game of basketball and of many of its most talented 

players. 

(2) EFFECT OF DESIGNATION.—The Commemorative Site 

shall not be a unit of the National Park System. 

(3) LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in this Act— 

(A) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to interfere 

with the rights of any person with respect to private property or any local zoning ordinance or land use plan of 

the State of New York or any political subdivision thereof, 

including prohibiting any actions that may otherwise be 

taken by a property owner (including any owner of the 

Commemorative Site) with respect to the property of the 

owner; 

(B) affects the administration of the Commemorative 

Site by New York City or the State of New York; or 
H. R. 6852—2 

(C) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire 

land or interests in land through condemnation or otherwise. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2022 / Presidential Documents 12391 

Memorandum of March 1, 2022 

Maximizing Assistance To Respond to COVID–19 

Memorandum for the Secretary of Homeland Security [and] the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121–5207 (the 

‘‘Stafford Act’’), I hereby order as follows: 

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of my Administration to combat and 

respond to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19) pandemic with the 

full capacity and capability of the Federal Government to protect and support 

our families, schools, and businesses, and to assist State, local, Tribal, and 

territorial governments to do the same, including through emergency and 

disaster assistance available from the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) and through Federal support of the Governors’ use of the National 

Guard. 

Sec. 2. Assistance for Category B COVID–19 Emergency Protective Measures. 

FEMA shall provide a 100 percent Federal cost share for all work eligible 

for assistance under Public Assistance Category B, pursuant to sections 

403 (42 U.S.C. 5170b), 502 (42 U.S.C. 5192), and 503 (42 U.S.C. 5193) 

of the Stafford Act, including work described in section 3(a) of the Presidential Memorandum of January 21, 2021 (Memorandum to Extend Federal 

Support to Governors’ Use of the National Guard to Respond to COVID– 

19 and to Increase Reimbursement and Other Assistance Provided to States), 

and in section 2 of that memorandum on the Governors’ use of the National 

Guard, performed from January 20, 2020, through July 1, 2022. 

Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: 

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, 

or the head thereof; or 

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. 

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable 

law and subject to the availability of appropriations. 

(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right 

or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by 

any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, 

its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with FR_PREZDOC2
12392 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2022 / Presidential Documents 

(d) The Administrator of FEMA is authorized and directed to publish 

this memorandum in the Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, March 1, 2022 

[FR Doc. 2022–04778 

Filed 3–3–22; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 9111–23–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with FR_PREZDOC2BIDEN.EPS</GPH>
suggested footnote

Higgins, Cortney to: Martha Keating 05/29/2012 01:59 PM

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: Martha Keating/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

History: This message has been forwarded.

After the first full paragraph on p. 25 that ends with 70 FR 39134, EPA should consider a clarifying

footnote to the effect that:

EPA notes that a BART determination made under the regional haze program is separate and distinct

from a best available control technology (BACT) determination made under the prevention of significant

deterioration (PSD) program.  42 U.S.C. Section 7475.  The fact that a control technology has been

chosen in a BART determination does not mean that it will be chosen in a BACT determination.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7066 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to allow or study the breach or alteration 

of the Lower Snake River dams or implement the Columbia Basin Restoration Initiative, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 22, 2024 

Mr. NEWHOUSE (for himself, Mrs. CHAVEZ-DEREMER, Mrs. RODGERS of 

Washington, Mr. FULCHER, and Mr. BENTZ) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to allow or study 

the breach or alteration of the Lower Snake River dams 

or implement the Columbia Basin Restoration Initiative, 

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 ‘‘Defending Against Ma5 nipulative Negotiators Act’’ or the ‘‘DAMN Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7066 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO 

2 BREACH LOWER SNAKE RIVER DAMS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—No Federal funds may be used 

4 to— 

5 (1) allow, lead to, or study the breach or func6 tional alteration of, including study of power, flood 

7 control, or navigation replacement of, or provide 

8 dam removal technical assistance for, the Lower 

9 Snake River dams; or 

10 (2) implement the Columbia Basin Restoration 

11 Initiative, as proposed in the memorandum of under12 standing filed on December 14, 2023, in the District 

13 Court for the District of Oregon in National Wildlife 

14 Federation, et al. v. National Marine Fisheries Serv15 ice, et al. (Case No. 3:01–cv–00640–SI). 

16 (b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘Lower 

17 Snake River dams’’ means the following dams in the State 

18 of Washington, authorized by section 2 of the Act of 

19 March 2, 1945 (chapter 19, 59 Stat. 21): 

20 (1) Ice Harbor Dam. 

21 (2) Lower Monumental Dam. 

22 (3) Little Goose Dam. 

23 (4) Lower Granite Dam. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Cash and Equity Bonus Determinations under 2012 Compensation Program


 Exhibit 10.2 
 Cash and Equity Bonus Determinations under 2012 Compensation Program 
  

					
	 Name
	  	Cash Bonus Earned ($)	  	Equity Bonus Earned (options)
	 Steven Plochocki
	  	151,250	  	27,500
	 Scott Decker
	  	102,025	  	16,500
	 Paul Holt
	  	90,750	  	16,500
	 Monte Sandler
	  	79,750	  	16,500
	 Donn Neufeld
	  	82,500	  	16,500