alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 12474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04591]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4635-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]


Washington; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Washington (FEMA-4635-DR), dated January 5, 2022, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued January 27, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Washington is hereby amended to include Public 
Assistance for the following areas among the areas determined to have 
been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the 
President in his declaration of January 5, 2022.

    Clallam, Island, Jefferson, Lewis, San Juan, Skagit, and Whatcom 
Counties, the Hoh Indian Tribe, Lummi Tribe of the Lummi 
Reservation, Nooksack Indian Tribe of Washington, Quileute Tribe, 
and the Swinomish Indian Community for Public Assistance.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-04591 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
    
                   CASE CREDIT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES     

               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
    
                                                            NINE MONTHS
                                                            -----------
                                                               ENDED
                                                               -----
                                                           SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                           -------------
                                                               1996
                                                               ----
<S>                                                        <C>
Net Income................................................     $ 65
Add:
  Interest expense........................................       53
  Amortization of capitalized debt expense................        2
  Portion of rentals representative of interest factor....        -
  Income tax expense and other taxes on income............       37
  Fixed charges of unconsolidated subsidiaries............        -
  Extraordinary loss......................................        3
                                                               ----
     Earnings as defined..................................     $160
                                                               ----
Interest expense..........................................     $ 53
Amortization of capitalized debt expense..................        2
Portion of rentals representative of interest factor......        -
Fixed charges of unconsolidated subsidiaries..............        -
                                                               ----
     Fixed charges as defined.............................     $ 55
                                                               ----
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges........................     2.91
     
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statements of operations and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>         
                    
                      
                                
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                         112,076
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,260,122
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    7,938,699
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               14,107,698
<PP&E>                                         5,381,313
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 23,008,378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,017,700
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       3,597
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,245,689
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   23,008,378
<SALES>                                        10,728,640
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,728,640
<CGS>                                          6,713,899
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,899,896
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (32,246)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             184,869
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                962,222
<INCOME-TAX>                                   354,551
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            607,671
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   607,671
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .14
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Theron Jermaine THOMPSON, a/k/a Freak, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6639

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Decided: September 28, 2017

Theron Jermaine Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*781PER CURIAM:

Theron Jermaine Thompson appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to amend/correct his presentence report in the underlying criminal proceeding. To the extent that Thompson’s pleading was construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, the district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifí-cate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thompson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of the appeal.

To the extent Thompson’s motion was construed as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), or as a motion under either Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 36, we have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the order for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Thompson,*Nos. 4:08-cr-00004-FL-1; 4:11-cv-00074-FL (E.D.N.C. May 2, 2017).

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.

*DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART*
#### Arian M. Hancock, Respondent, *v.*Raphael M. Gomez et al., Appellants.

An agent'employed by a trustee to collect a claim, the subject of the trust, has no right to undertake the discharge of the trust, and in an action against him by his principal for refusal to pay upon demand the moneys collected, it is no defence that he has paid it to one claiming to be the *cesiui que irusi.*

(Submitted June 18, 1872;

decided November 12, 1872.)

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court of the first judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of defendants and granting a new trial.

On July 26, 1862, at Malaga, Spain, the plaintiff, who was United States consul, received from James H. Hewitt, master of the barque Reindeer, belonging to W. A. Sale *&*Co., of New York, an order on Sale & Co. for the payment to the plaintiff of $176.33-|, balance of wages due one John H. Hanson, as mate of said barque, which order the plaintiff subsequently sent to the defendants, with his consular certificate attached, and a direction to Sale *&*Co. to pay said amount to the defendants. Defendants received the same, and collected of Sale & Co. the amount of money therein mentioned, gave *669a receipt therefor, placed it to plaintiff’s credit, and acknowledged to plaintiff that they had received it.

Some two or three months after, a woman, calling herself Mrs. John H. Hanson, and claiming to he the widow of said Hanson, came to said Sale & Co. and claimed that she was entitled to said money; whereupon Sale *&*Co. notified defendants, who paid the money back, and they paid it to her. There was no evidence of the death of Hanson or that the woman was his wife. Some time in April, 1863, a demand of the money was made of defendants on behalf of plaintiff and payment thereof refused.

*Held,*that plaintiff held the money officially as United States consul for whoever might be entitled thereto, and that defendants, his agent, had no right to undertake to discharge the trust; that the facts were no justification for the return of the money, and that defendants were liable.

*Erastus Coolee*for the appellants.

*B. F. Watson*for the respondent.

Grover, J.,

reads opinion for affirmance- of order.

All concur.

Order affirmed and judgment absolute against defendants.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6284 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6284

   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the 
                 marketing of authorized generic drugs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 2016

   Mr. Smith of Washington introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the 
                 marketing of authorized generic drugs.

    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 ``Eliminate Price Increases Act of 
2016'' or the ``EPI Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF AUTHORIZED GENERICS.

    Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
355) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(y) Prohibition of Authorized Generic Drugs.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this Act, no holder of a new drug application approved under 
        subsection (c) shall manufacture, market, sell, or distribute 
        an authorized generic drug, direct or indirectly, or authorize 
        any other person to manufacture, market, sell, or distribute an 
        authorized generic drug.
            ``(2) Authorized generic drug.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, the term `authorized generic drug'--
                    ``(A) means any version of a listed drug (as such 
                term is used in subsection (j)) that the holder of the 
                new drug application approved under subsection (c) for 
                that listed drug seeks to commence marketing, selling, 
                or distributing, directly or indirectly, after receipt 
                of a notice sent pursuant to subsection (j)(2)(B) with 
                respect to that listed drug; and
                    ``(B) does not include any drug to be marketed, 
                sold, or distributed--
                            ``(i) by an entity eligible for exclusivity 
                        with respect to such drug under subsection 
                        (j)(5)(B)(iv); or
                            ``(ii) after expiration or forfeiture of 
                        any exclusivity with respect to such drug under 
                        such subsection (j)(5)(B)(iv).''.
                                 <all>
```
# EUR-Lex - 32002A0205(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002A0205(01)

**Commission opinion of 30 January 2002 concerning the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the Sizewell A Power Station located in the United Kingdom, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty **

*
Official Journal C 032 , 05/02/2002 P. 0020 - 0020 *

Commission opinion

of 30 January 2002

concerning the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the Sizewell A Power Station located in the United Kingdom, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

(2002/C 32/09)

(only the English text is authentic)

On 30 July 2001, the European Commission received from the Government of the United Kingdom, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, general data relating to the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the Sizewell A Power Station.

On the basis of these data, and following consultation with the group of experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:

(a) The distance between the plant and the nearest neighbour Member State, in this case France, is approximately 135 km.

(b) Under normal operating conditions, taking into account the new foreseen discharge authorisation, the discharges of liquid and gaseous effluents are not liable to cause an exposure, significant from the point of view of health, of the population in other Member States.

(c) Solid intermediate level radioactive wastes are stored at the site. Low level radioacitve wastes and irradiated fuel elements are stored at the site before being transported off-site for disposal, respectively reprocessing, in facilities within the United Kingdom.

(d) In the event of unplanned discharges of radioactive waste, which may follow an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the general data, the doses likely to be received by the population in other Member States would not be significant from the point of view of health.

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form arising from the Sizewell A Power Station in the United Kingdom, both in normal operation and in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the general data, is not liable to result in radioactive contamination, significant from the point of view of health, of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

               Written Statement of President and Chief Executive Officer
                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
              Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

       The undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Mohegan
Tribal Gaming Authority (the "Authority"), hereby certifies that, to his
knowledge, on the date hereof:

       (a)    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Authority for the
              Quarter Ended June 30, 2002 filed on the date hereof with the
              Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies
              with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
              Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                          /s/ William J. Velardo
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          William J. Velardo
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          November 12, 2002

                                       48
EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADDED BY
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 as of and
for the period covered by the Report.
 /s/
Gerard P. Cuddy
Gerard
P. CuddyPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Thomas D. Cestare
Thomas D. CestareExecutive Vice President and ChiefMarch 11, 2011
    
    Financial Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6964 

To establish limitations on advanced payments for bus rolling stock, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 11, 2024 

Mrs. FISCHBACH (for herself, Mr. STAUBER, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, and 

Ms. CRAIG) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To establish limitations on advanced payments for bus rolling 

stock, 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. LIMITATIONS ON ADVANCED PAYMENTS FOR 

4 BUS ROLLING STOCK. 

5 Section 5323 of title 49, United States Code, is 

6 amended by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(w) LIMITATIONS ON ADVANCED PAYMENTS FOR

8 BUS ROLLING STOCK.— 

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any provi10 sion of this chapter or part 200 of title 2, Code of 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6964 IH

1 Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation, a 

2 recipient may use assistance made available under 

3 this chapter to make an advance payment on a bus 

4 rolling stock vehicle without the transit vehicle man5 ufacturer obtaining a performance bond or similar 

6 financial arrangement. 

7 ‘‘(2) LIMITATIONS.— A recipient making an ad8 vance payment under paragraph (1)— 

9 ‘‘(A) shall have— 

10 ‘‘(i) a signed purchase order and exe11 cuted contract with a transit vehicle manu12 facturer that includes advance payment 

13 provisions; 

14 ‘‘(ii) preaward authority; and 

15 ‘‘(iii) met the requirements under sub16 section (m) and section 5318(e) of this 

17 title; and 

18 ‘‘(B) shall not provide an advanced pay19 ment that is more than 20 percent of the total 

20 purchase order value.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Max Mayer, Doing Business under the Name of Silver Lady Company, Respondent, *v.*Jac. Feinberg & Son, Inc., Appellant.

Argued October 18, 1943;

decided December 2, 1943.

*735
      *Harold L. Fierman*and *Milton Kunen*for appellant.

*Irving Moldauer*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacheb, JJ.
#### CARTER BROS. v. YOUNGER BROS.

SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS,

AUSTIN TERM, 1884.

*Attachment*— Affidavit *for.*— Where the affidavit sets forth two causes for attachment, which are distinct and inconsistent, it will not support the writ.

*Same.*— That the defendants have disposed of their property; and that they are about to convert their property into money, etc., are distinct and inconsistent causes.

Appeal from Montague county.

Rugley & Huff, for appellant.

No counsel marked for appellee.

STATEMENT.

This suit was upon a- mercantile account. Plaintiffs, Carter Bros., by their agent, made affidavit reciting that the defendants “have disposed of their property, in whole or in part, with the intent to defraud their creditors, and that they are about to convert their prop*289erty into money for the purpose of placing it beyond the reach oí their creditors.” They gave bond and an attachment issued and was levied on property of defendants. At the return term, on motion, the court quashed the attachment and rendered judgment against defendants *in personam,*without foreclosing the attachment. Plaintiff appeals, assigning this ruling as error.

OPINION.

Delany, J.:

The only question in this case is .whether the court erred in quashing the attachment. The plaintiff set forth iu his affidavit two causes for attachment, which are not only distinct, but inconsistent — both of them can not be true.

If the defendants had disposed of their property, it was beyond their reach; hence, they could not convert it into money in order to defraud their creditors. It is difficult to distinguish between the affidavit in this case and the one in the case of Dunnenbaum v. Sohraum, (59 Texas, 281). Our opinion is that the judgment should be affirmed.