alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 63 (Friday, April 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 15317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7500]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Submit comments on or before May 4, 2009. If you intend to 
comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB 
Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
    Copies: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency 
Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 
3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance 
Officer, (202) 205-7044.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Customer Satisfaction Survey.
    SBA Form Number: 2313.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Description of Respondents: A team of Quality Assistance staff at 
the Disaster Assistance Customer Service Center (DACSC) would conduct a 
brief telephone survey of a representative sample of customers to 
measure their satisfaction with the service received from the DACSC and 
Field Operations Centers (FOC's).
    Responses: 6,864.
    Annual Burden: 2,014.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. E9-7500 Filed 4-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
March 28, 2014 

Mr. Brian E. Foont 

Counsel for Frontier Airlines, Inc. 

The Foont Law Firm, LLC 

11909 Reynolds Avenue 

Potomac, MD 20854 

Dear Mr. Foont: 

This is in response to your September 30, 2013, letter sent to the public docket 

(Docket No. FAA-2013-0188) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Frontier Airlines, Inc. (Frontier) for an extension to its exemption from § 

121.803(c)(3) and Appendix A of part 121 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 

CFR). That exemption, if granted, would continue to provide Frontier relief from the 

requirement to include Atropine in an Emergency Medical Kit (EMK). 

Your exemption request is now covered under Exemption No. 10690C (copy enclosed) in 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0034. In that action, the FAA amended the Airlines for America, 

Regional Airlines Association, and National Air Carriers Association exemption to include 

all similarly-situated air carriers. 

Because the relief you seek is now covered under Exemption No. 10690C, we will take no 

further action on your petition. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Jodi L. Baker 

Deputy Division Manager, Air Transportation Division 

Enclosure
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2452 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2452

    To suspend temporarily the duty on women's belts of leather or 
           composition leather, each valued $7.00 or higher.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 26, 2012

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on women's belts of leather or 
           composition leather, each valued $7.00 or higher.

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

SECTION 1. WOMEN'S BELTS OF LEATHER OR COMPOSITION LEATHER, EACH VALUED 
              $7.00 OR HIGHER.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Women's belts of    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        leather or                                                         31/2015.......
                        composition
                        leather, each
                        valued $7.00 or
                        higher (provided
                        for in subheading
                        4203.30.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or
caused such internal control over financial reporting to be
designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: September 9, 2009
    /s/ Robert E. DoseRobert E. DoseVice President of Finance
(Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 11.1****Computation of Earnings Per Share**     The following table sets forth the computation of dilutive earnings per share (“EPS”) for thethree months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005.           **Three Months Ended**   **March 31,**   **2006**  **2005** **Numerator:**        Net income as reported for basic EPS  $625,737  $737,066 Adjustments to income for diluted EPS   —   20,061                 Net income for diluted EPS  $625,737  $757,127                 **Denominator:**                 Weighted average shares for basic earnings per share   21,377,525   15,689,872 Effect of dilutive securities:        Stock options   1,584,900   661,908 Warrants   214,653   270,936 Conversion of debt instruments   —   840,902        Adjusted weighted average shares and assumed conversions for EPS   23,177,078   17,463,618                 Basic EPS  $0.03  $0.05        Diluted EPS  $0.03  $0.04
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6884** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. SHEROD MAIR , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Cou rt for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. ( 5:99

- mj

- 00210

- BR

- 1; 5:10

- cv - 00222

- BR )

Submitted : May 23, 2011 Decided: June 3, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un p ublished per curiam opinion
. Sherod Mair, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sherod Hastings Mair seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Sup p. 2010 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitut ional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). 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 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural rulin g is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mair has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      2,896,200
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            2,896,200
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              2,896,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          27,400
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                  2,479,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                2,896,200
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               84,800
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               34,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                50,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            50,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   50,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      1.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.13



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATION

(Not filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Steven D. Foster, the Chief Financial Officer of Parallel Petroleum Corporation (“Parallel”), hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Parallel for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the periodic reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in that Form 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Parallel Petroleum Corporation.

 

|                    |   |   |                                       |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
| Dated: November 7, 2005 |   |   | /s/ Steven D. Foster                       |
|                    |   |   | Steven D. Foster,

Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Parallel Petroleum Corporation and will be retained by Parallel Petroleum Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITEDSTATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

 

**FORM10-Q**

 

(Mark One)

[X]  QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACTOF 1934

 

For thequarterly period ended September 30, 2010

 

or

 

[ ]   TRANSITIONREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF****1934

 

For thetransition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number0-13808

 

**HOUSING PROGRAMSLIMITED**

(Exactname of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

55Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina 29602

(Addressof principal executive offices)

 

(864)239-1000

(Registrant’s telephonenumber, including area code)

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file suchreports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days.  [X] Yes [ ] No

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporateWeb site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted andposted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of this chapter) duringthe preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant wasrequired to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes [ ] No

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company.  See the definitionsof “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reportingcompany” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of theExchange Act). [ ] Yes [X] No
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7718

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HENRY SMALLS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CR-91-288-2, CA-94-3508-2-8)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 26, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Smalls, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin A. Hagood, Jr., Assistant

United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Smalls, Nos.

CR-91-288-2; CA-94-3508-2-8 (D.S.C. Oct. 5, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion for counsel and 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
Sandra K. DAVIDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1712

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (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                Winland. |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                        | **Winland              Electronics,              Inc.** |                                                                              |
|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                        |                                                    |                                                                              |   |
| Date:                 October 31, 2007 | By:                                                     | /s/ Lorin              E. Krueger                                            |   |
|                                        |                                                    | Lorin              E. Krueger, President and              Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                        |                                                    | (Principal              Executive              Officer)                           |   |
|                                        |                                                    |                                                                              |   |
----

----

|  | (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. |
|--|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:   September                28, 2007 | By:    | /s/                BRUCE                STEPHENS             |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                      |   | Bruce                Stephens                                                                                            |
|                                                      |   | Chief                Executive Officer and                                                                               |
|                                                      |   | Chief                Financial Officer                                                                                   |

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-10742 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ERIC BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95-CR-005-A

- - - - - - - - - - April 26, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Eric Bryant argues that his right to due process was violated by the district court’s refusal to grant his motion for a downward departure. Because we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s exercise of its discretion in denying the motion for a downward departure, unless the court’s refusal was the result of a violation of law or a misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines, the appeal is DISMISSED. United States v. DiMarco , 46 F.3d 476, 477 (5th Cir. 1995).DISMISSED.
ex10-3.htm











Exhibit 10.3







Director Fee Arrangements







The non-employee directors of 1st Security Bank of Washington (the “Bank”) receive compensation for their service on the board of directors of the Bank.  In setting their compensation, the board of directors considers the significant amount of time and level of skill required for director service.  Director compensation is reviewed annually by the compensation committee, which makes recommendations for approval by the Board of Directors of the Bank.  Non-employee directors of the Bank currently receive $2,000 per month, except for the Chairman of the Board who receives $3,000 per month, for service on the Board of Directors of the Bank. No fees currently are paid for service
on any Bank board committees.


 


Directors are provided or reimbursed for travel and lodging and other customary out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending board and committee meetings, industry conferences and continuing education seminars.


 


The board of directors of FS Bancorp, Inc., the holding company for the Bank, is identical to that of the Bank.  No board fees are paid for service on the board of directors of FS Bancorp, Inc.
Ronnie Earl BAILEY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-1539

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.