alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 144 (Tuesday, July 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40286-40287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20062]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Notice of information collection to be submitted to OMB for 
review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the FDIC hereby gives notice that it 
plans to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request 
for OMB review and approval of the information collection system 
described below.
    Type of Review: Renewal of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Recordkeeping and disclosure requirements in connection with 
regulation Z (Truth in Lending).
    OMB Number: 3064-0082.
    Annual Burden: Estimated annual number of respondents--6,100; 
Estimated time per response--787 hours; Average annual burden hours--
4,800,700 hours.
    Expiration Date of OMB Clearance: September 30, 1998.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Washington, D.C. 20503.
    FDIC Contact: Tamara R. Manly, (202) 898-7453, Office of the 
Executive Secretary, Room F-4058, Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, 550 17th Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20429.
    Comments: Comments on this collection of information are welcome 
and should be submitted on or before August 27, 1998 to both the OMB 
reviewer and the FDIC contact listed above.

ADDRESSES: Information about this submission, including copies of the 
proposed collection of information, may be obtained by calling or 
writing the FDIC contact listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulation Z (12 CFR 226) prescribes uniform 
methods of computing the cost of credit, disclosure of credit terms, 
and procedures for resolving billing errors

[[Page 40287]]

on certain credit accounts. Regulation Z is issued by the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System (``FRB'') under the authority 
of Title I of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 et 
seq.). Section 105 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1604) designates the FRB as 
the issuer of the implementing regulations and section 108(a) of the 
Act (15 U.S.C. 1607) designates the FDIC as having the enforcement 
responsibilities in the case of insured nonmember banks.

    Dated: July 22, 1998.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-20062 Filed 7-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
.**-------------------------------------------------------------~**



### SERVED: October 9, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH D. BARBERA FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA 2013- 1083 

### AMENDED PROCEDURAL ORDER We do not anticipate reaching this case priorto January 2015. Unless specifically changedherein all prior orders remain in effect. WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the following procedural schedule: 1. On orbefore January 9, 2015, the parties shall conclude all discovery including, but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to production requests and/or interrogatories. Ifthe parties cannot resolve a discovery dispute they shall submitthe dispute to the undersigned for resolution in a timely manner; 2. The parties shall beprepared to presentthis case at a hearing on or after January 9, 2015, subjectto the availability ofcourtroom facilities. The specific date and time for the hearing will be forthcoming in a separate Order.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative LawJudge Attachment

- Service List

1SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building-Suite 2W1000 1
Joseph D. Barbera, Respondent 14706 N.E. Erickson Dr. La Center, W A 98629-4405 TEL: NOT PROVIDED FAX: NOT PROVIDED David F. Shayne, Complainant's Counsel Northwest MountainRegion, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Ave., S.W. Renton, WA 98057 TEL: 425-227-1847 FAX: 425-227-1007 ONE COPY

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-1083 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service In person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 2
No. 11-317.

#### Fabiola Is Ra El Bey, Petitioner v. Mark R. Kravitz, Judge, United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, et al.; and Fabiola Derisme, Petitioner v. Bank of America, National Association.

565 U.S. 964, 132 S. Ct. 466,

181 L. Ed. 2d 296,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7557.

October 17, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies
with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|                        |  |                                                   
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 2, 2009 |  | /s/ Scott J. Krenz                                
|                        |  | Scott J. Krenz                                    
|                        |  | Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of theglobe.com, inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-Q for the  three  months  ending  March  31,  2005,  as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Edward
A. Cespedes,  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 to the best of my 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.

              Date:   May 13, 2005


                      /s/ Edward A. Cespedes
                      -------------------------
                      Edward A. Cespedes
                      Chief Financial Officer
79

Section C: Recommended Funding Levels, by State

Alaska

Program Intervention Budgets: 2014

Recommended Annual Investment $10.2 million

Deaths in State Caused by Smoking

Annual average smoking-attributable deaths 600

Youth aged 0-17 projected to die from smoking 14,000

Annual Costs Incurred in State from Smoking

Total medical $ 438 million

State Revenue from Tobacco Sales and Settlement

FY 2012 tobacco tax revenue $ 71.3 million

FY 2012 tobacco settlement payment $30.0 million

Total state revenue from tobacco sales and settlement $101.3 million

Percent Tobacco Revenue to Fund at Recommended Level 10%

Annual Total (Millions) Annual Per Capita

Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended

I. State and Community Interventions 

Multiple social resources working together will 

have the greatest long-term population impact.

$3.3 $4.1 $4.51 $5.61

II. Mass-Reach Health Communication Interventions 

Media interventions work to prevent smoking initiation, 

promote cessation, and shape social norms.

$1.0 $1.4 $1.37 $1.91

III. Cessation Interventions 

Tobacco use treatment is effective and highly cost-effective. $2.2 $3.4 $3.01 $4.65

IV. Surveillance and Evaluation 

Publicly funded programs should be accountable and 

demonstrate effectiveness.

$0.7 $0.9 $0.89 $1.22

V. Infrastructure, Administration, and Management 

Complex, integrated programs require experienced 

staff to provide fiscal management, accountability, 

and coordination.

$0.3 $0.4 $0.44 $0.61

TOTAL $7.5 $10.2 $10.22 $14.00

Note: A justification for each program element and the rationale for the budget estimates are provided in Section A. The funding estimates presented are based on adjustments for changes in population and cost-of-living increases since Best Practices—2007 was published. The actual 

funding required for implementing programs will vary depending on state characteristics, such as prevalence of tobacco use, sociodemographic 

factors, and other factors. See Appendix E for data sources on deaths, costs, revenue, and state-specific factors. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention • Office on Smoking and Health

www.cdc.gov/tobacco • tobaccoinfo@cdc.gov • 1 (800) CDC-INFO or 1 (800) 232-4636 

2014
No. 11-5781.

#### In re Hamid Reza Sayadi-Takhtehkar, Petitioner.

565 U.S. 813, 132 S. Ct. 392,

181 L. Ed. 2d 247,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6497.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39667

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

JOSHUA ALAN DAVIS

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 715

Filed: November 13, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS I S AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Th ird Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Bradly S. Ford , District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent

.

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Joshua Alan Davis pled guilty to burglary . I.C. § 18

- 1401 . The district court sentenced

Davis to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of conf inement of three years

. The district court suspended the sentence and placed Davis on probation. Davis served

numerous periods of discretionary jail time while on probation, par ticipated in the retained

jurisdiction program , and ultimately admitted to violating the terms of his probation. The district

court revoked Davis’s probation and ordered execution of his suspended sentence. Davis filed

an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Davis appeals.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentia lly a plea for leniency,

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In2 presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant mu st show that the sentence is excessive in light of

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the

motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the

record, including the new information submitted with Davis ’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no

abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district cou rt’s order denying Davis ’s

Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
No. 11-72.

#### FirstBank Puerto Rico, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. La Vida Merger Sub, et al.

565 U.S. 881, 132 S. Ct. 248,

181 L. Ed. 2d 143,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5597.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

Same case below, 638 F.3d 37.
### DOE/EA-1662

Finding of No Significant Impact

for

10 CFR Part 430 Energy Cons ervation Program: Energy

Conservation Standards for Certain Consumer Products (Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, Microwave Ovens, and Electric and Gas Kitchen Ranges a nd Ovens) and for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equi pment (Commercial Clothes Washers)

May 19, 2009
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136292 & (62) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, In re Adoption of MAHQUAN DESHAWN Justices
 

PENDLETON, Minor.
 

_________________________________________/ 

RUPERT K. MANN and GERALDINE M. 

MANN, 

Petitioners-Appellants, 

v SC: 136292 

 COA: 278964 

Wayne CC Family Division:

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES and 06-000634-AO 

CHERYL COCHRAN,

Respondents-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the February 14, 2008 judgment of the Court of 

Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0506 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 9, 2008 

Clerk
No. 10-11182.

#### Billy Dale Green, Petitioner v. Arkansas.

565 U.S. 871, 132 S. Ct. 225,

181 L. Ed. 2d 125,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7140.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas denied.

Same case below, 2011 Ark. 92, 380 S.W.3d 368.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 146 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40702-40703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19786]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Logistics Agency


Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.
ACTION: Notice to Correct Effective Date.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is amending the effective date of an 
alteration to a system of records notice

[[Page 40703]]

published on July 14, 1998, at 63 FR 37860. The Effective Date:  of the 
alteration should read August 14, 1998. This amendment brings the 
notice into compliance with the 30 day statutory public comment period.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Vahan Moushegian, Jr., at (703) 
607-2943.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Effective Date: for the system of 
records notice published on July 14, 1998, at 63 FR 37860. The 
Effective Date:  should read August 14, 1998. This amendment brings the 
notice into compliance with the 30 day statutory public comment period.
    Dated: July 20, 1998.

L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 98-19786 Filed 7-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-F
Convening CDC Partners as a 

Learning Community 

The Learning Community is a $9M (fiscal year 21-22) CDC collaboration effort that brings together 500+ organizations 

funded through the Partnering for Vaccine Equity (P4VE) program– from local community-based organizations to large 

medical associations and national foundations – to share knowledge and best practices to achieve vaccine equity.

P4VE Learning Community

Within the Learning Community, partners 

share their expertise, learn from other 

partners, and access resources, including 

best practices and ready-to-use 

communications products. Through group 

learning, one-on-one coaching with subject 

matter experts (SMEs), and data technical 

assistance, the Learning Community helps 

partners address urgent needs, share 

insights, and strengthen their capacity to 

address broader long-standing inequities in 

adult vaccination.

The Learning Community supports partners through cross-functional coordination including: 

• Technical Assistance: one-on-one coaching and subject matter expertise to support program delivery 

• Peer-to-Peer and Group Learning: workshops, webinars, and cohort-based insight sharing

• Resource Management: access to a curated and evaluated repository of materials and resources

Vaccine Resource Hub

P4VE partners and the public have access to a 

Vaccine Resource Hub, where they can search 

for and download vetted, culturally relevant 

materials to inform their work. P4VE partners 

are also able to share their own resources to be 

posted on the Hub. Resources include 

infographics, toolkits, videos, and more.

922

Materials and resources (E.g., 

social media posts, toolkits) 

shared by partners

60,516

Views and downloads of materials 

on the Vaccine Resource Hub and 

group learning website

3,018

Total attendees of 47 webinars, 

office hours, and other group 

learning events 

Program data represents data as of June 2022

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/health-equity/

Last Updated 09/2022
No. 11-5769.

#### Jose Matos, Petitioner v. John Kerestes, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy, et al.

565 U.S. 950, 132 S. Ct. 416,

181 L. Ed. 2d 272,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7311.

October 11, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
No. 11-6200.

#### F. J., Petitioner v. Florida Department of Children and Families.

565 U.S. 1016, 132 S. Ct. 553,

181 L. Ed. 2d 400,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8058,

November 7, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

Same case below, 60 So. 3d 386.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3172 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3172

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To provide that inclined sleepers for infants and crib bumpers shall be 
 considered banned hazardous products under section 8 of the Consumer 
              Product Safety Act, 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 ``Safe Sleep for Babies Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. BANNING OF INCLINED SLEEPERS FOR INFANTS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, inclined sleepers for infants, regardless of the 
date of manufacture, shall be considered a banned hazardous product 
under section 8 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2057).
    (b) Inclined Sleeper for Infants Defined.--In this section, the 
term ``inclined sleeper for infants'' means a product with an inclined 
sleep surface greater than ten degrees that is intended, marketed, or 
designed to provide sleeping accommodations for an infant up to 1 year 
old.

SEC. 3. BANNING OF CRIB BUMPERS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, crib bumpers, regardless of the date of 
manufacture, shall be considered a banned hazardous product under 
section 8 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2057).
    (b) Crib Bumper Defined.--In this section, the term ``crib 
bumper''--
            (1) means any material that is intended to cover the sides 
        of a crib to prevent injury to any crib occupant from impacts 
        against the side of a crib or to prevent partial or complete 
        access to any openings in the sides of a crib to prevent a crib 
        occupant from getting any part of the body entrapped in any 
        opening;
            (2) includes a padded crib bumper, a supported and 
        unsupported vinyl bumper guard, and vertical crib slat covers; 
        and
            (3) does not include a non-padded mesh crib liner.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 16, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3172

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To provide that inclined sleepers for infants and crib bumpers shall be 
 considered banned hazardous products under section 8 of the Consumer 
              Product Safety Act, and for other purposes.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3305 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3305

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
2509 George Mason Drive in Virginia Beach, Virginia, as the ``Ryan Keith 
                       Cox Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RYAN KEITH COX POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2509 George Mason Drive in Virginia Beach, Virginia, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Ryan Keith Cox Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ryan Keith 
Cox Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```