alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to Employment Contract of CEO



 Exhibit 10.14 
  
 Allegheny Energy Service Corporation 
 800 Cabin
Hill Drive 
 Greensburg, PA 15601 
  
 February 18, 2004 
  
 Paul J. Evanson 
 c/o Allegheny Energy, Inc. 
 800 Cabin Hill Drive 
 Greensburg, PA 15601 
  
 Dear Paul: 
  
 You and Allegheny Energy Service Corporation (“AESC”) for itself and as agent for its parent, Allegheny Energy, Inc. (“AEI”), the
affiliates and subsidiaries of AESC and AEI, and any successors or assigns of any of the foregoing, entered into an Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of June 9, 2003. Pursuant to Section 5(a)(i) of the Agreement, you were
entitled to receive a grant of stock options for 1,500,000 shares of AEI Common Stock under the AEI Long-Term Incentive Plan on January 2, 2004. However, as you are aware, such grant could not be made without obtaining authorization under the Public
Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935, and such authorization was not obtained until February 10, 2004. 
  
 Accordingly, you, AESC and AEI hereby agree that the Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 
  
 1. Amendment to Section 5(a)(i) of the Agreement. Section 5(a)(i) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as
follows: 
  
 “(i) Option
Grant. On the fifth business day following the date that AESC obtains authorization under the Public Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935 (the “Authorization Date”), AESC shall grant the Executive stock options (the
“Options”) for 1,500,000 shares of AEI Common Stock under the Allegheny Energy, Inc. 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “LTIP”) at a per share exercise price equal to the per share closing price of AEI Common Stock
on the date of grant, as quoted in the NYSE Composite Transaction Listing in The Wall Street Journal. Such grant shall be evidenced by an award agreement substantially in the form of Exhibit A.” 
  
 2. Amendments to Section 5 (c)(i) of the Agreement. The references to
January 2, 2004 and January 1, 2004 in clauses (1) and (2) of Section 5(c)(i) of the Agreement are hereby amended to refer to the Authorization Date and the 2004 Closing Price is defined to mean the per share closing price of AEI Common Stock on the
Authorization Date as quoted in the NYSE Composite Transaction listing in The Wall Street Journal. 
  










 Mr. Paul J. Evanson 
 January 18, 2004 
 Page 2 
  

 Except as specifically amended hereby, all of the terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain
unchanged and are hereby ratified and confirmed. Please signify your agreement with the foregoing by signing the attached copy of this letter in the place indicated. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	Allegheny Energy Service Corporation
		
	By:	 	 /s/ David B. Hertzog

	 	 	

	 	 	 David B. Hertzog

	 	 	 Vice President & General Counsel

	
	Allegheny Energy, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ David B. Hertzog

	 	 	

	 	 	 David B. Hertzog

	 	 	 Vice President & General Counsel



  

	
	AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
	
	 /s/ Paul J. Evanson

	

	 Paul J. Evanson
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1458

AN ACT

To require any Federal or State court to recognize any 

notarization made by a notary public licensed by a State 

other than the State where the court is located when 

such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1458 EH

1 SECTION 1. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN FEDERAL 

2 COURTS. 

3 Each Federal court shall recognize any lawful notari4 zation made by a notary public licensed or commissioned 

5 under the laws of a State other than the State where the 

6 Federal court is located if—

7 (1) such notarization occurs in or affects inter8 state commerce; and 

9 (2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary 

10 public’s authority, is used in the notarization; or 

11 (B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal 

12 information is securely attached to, or logically asso13 ciated with, the electronic record so as to render the 

14 record tamper-resistant. 

15 SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN STATE 

16 COURTS. 

17 Each court that operates under the jurisdiction of a 

18 State shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a 

19 notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of 

20 a State other than the State where the court is located 

21 if—

22 (1) such notarization occurs in or affects inter23 state commerce; and 

24 (2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary 

25 public’s authority, is used in the notarization; or 
3

•HR 1458 EH

1 (B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal 

2 information is securely attached to, or logically asso3 ciated with, the electronic record so as to render the 

4 record tamper-resistant. 

5 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

6 In this Act: 

7 (1) ELECTRONIC RECORD.—The term ‘‘elec8 tronic record’’ has the meaning given that term in 

9 section 106 of the Electronic Signatures in Global 

10 and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. 7006). 

11 (2) LOGICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH.—Seal infor12 mation is ‘‘logically associated with’’ an electronic 

13 record if the seal information is securely bound to 

14 the electronic record in such a manner as to make 

15 it impracticable to falsify or alter, without detection, 

16 either the record or the seal information. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 6, 

2006. 

Attest:

Clerk. 
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1458

AN ACT

To require any Federal or State court to recognize 

or affects interstate commerce.court is located when such notarization occurs in censed by a State other than the State where the any notarization made by a notary public li-
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul JARA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-5705.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 23, 2004.

Thomas A. Colthurst, Asst. U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Memphis, TN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

April R. Goode, Asst. F.P. Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Memphis, TN, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: BATCHELDER and MOORE, Circuit Judges; and CALDWELL, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Karen Caldwell, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

*ORDER*

Raul Jara appeals from his judgment of conviction and sentence. The government has waived oral argument, and this court construes Jara’s failure to respond to its show cause letter concerning oral argument as a waiver of such argument. Further, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

In 2003, Jara pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the attempted manufacture of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) *&*846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and to being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The district court sentenced Jara to 135 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, and the court imposed a $200 special assessment. In this timely appeal, Jara argues that the district court improperly denied him a reduction in his Sentencing Guidelines range for being a minor participant in the offense.

Upon review, we conclude that Jara’s argument is without merit. USSG § 3B1.2(b) provides for a two-level reduction in a defendant’s Guidelines range if he was a minor participant in the criminal activity. A minor role means any participant who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role cannot be described as minimal. Section 3B1.2, comment. (n.5). In determining whether to award the defendant a reduction for a mitigating role in the offense, the court must consider the portion of a conspiracy that was attributable to the defendant for purposes of determining his base offense level. *United States v. Salgado,*250 F.3d 438, 458 (6th Cir.2001); *United States v. Roberts,*223 F.3d 377, 380-81 (6th Cir. 2000). The defendant has the burden of demonstrating his mitigating role in the offense by a preponderance of the evidence. *Salgado,*250 F.3d at 458. Jara has not met his burden of showing that he was a minor participant in the criminal activity.

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

TPOXX (테코비리마트) 

원숭이 두창의 증상이 있다면, 원숭이 두창에 걸린 사람과 접촉하지 않았더라도 의료 제공자와 상담하십시오. 

알아야 할 사항:

 TPOXX 는 성인과 어린이의 천연두를 치료하기 위해 2018 년 FDA 가 승인한 항바이러스 약물입니다. 

 원숭이 두창 바이러스 감염에 대한 FDA 승인 또는 승인된 치료법은 없으며 TPOXX 를 사용하여 인간의 원숭이 

두창을 치료하는 안전성이나 효과를 입증하는 데이터는 없습니다. 

 TPOXX 는 면역 체계가 약화된 환자와 같이 심각한 질병을 앓고 있거나, 심하게 아플 가능성이 높은 

사람들에게 사용될 수 있습니다.

해당 약물에 대해:

 FDA 는 FDA 의 동물 규칙 규정에 따라 천연두에 대한 TPOXX 를 승인했으며, 이는 인간 효능 연구가 

윤리적이지 않을 때 특정 약물 및 생물학적 제품의 승인을 허용하고 약물 또는 생물학적 제품의 효과를 

연구하기 위한 현장 시험이 실현 가능하지 않을 때 허용합니다. 

 천연두가 전 세계적으로 근절되고 임상 시험의 목적으로 사람들을 천연두 바이러스에 노출시키는 것은 

윤리적이지 않기 때문에 천연두 질환에 대한 인간의 효능 연구는 실현 가능하지 않습니다. 동물 모델에서 

천연두 바이러스의 사용에 따른 과학적 및 물류 한계로 인해 TPOXX 의 효능은 관련 바이러스, 특히 원숭이두 

바이러스에 감염된 비인간 영장류 및 토끼 바이러스에 감염된 토끼를 사용하는 동물 모델에서 

확립되었습니다. 이 연구들은 TPOXX 를 투여받은 동물에서 위약을 투여받은 동물에 비해 생존율이 

향상되었음을 입증했습니다.

 현재 인간에서 천연두 또는 원숭이 두창의 치료에 대한 TPOXX 의 효과를 입증하는 데이터는 없습니다. 

TPOXX 는 안전성을 평가하기 위해 천연두나 원숭이 감염이 없는 건강한 인간 자원봉사자들에게만 

시험되었습니다. 

 동물 연구에 효과적인 약물이 인간에게 항상 효과적이지는 않습니다. 원숭이 두창에 감염된 인간에서 

TPOXX 의 안전성과 효능을 평가하기 위해 무작위 대조 시험을 수행하는 것이 필수적입니다. 

 원숭이 두창이 세계의 다른 지역 (예 : 콩고 민주 공화국)에서 풍토병이었기 때문에 FDA 의 동물 규칙 규정에 

따라 원숭이 두창의 치료 승인을 받을 자격이 없었습니다.

 처방 정보에는 제품에 대한 자세한 정보가 포함되어 있습니다. 

추가 정보:

 CDC 는 원숭이 두창의 치료를 위해 TPOXX 를 사용할 수 있게 해주는 "자비로운 사용"이라고도 불리는 확장된 

접근 조사 신약 프로토콜을 보유하고있으며, 이 제품은 전략적 국가 비축에서만 사용할 수 있습니다. FDA 는 

CDC 와 긴밀히 협력하여 데이터 수집 및 보고 요구 사항을 줄이기 위해 프로토콜을 간소화했습니다. 이제 

수정된 프로토콜을 사용할 수 있습니다. 

 원숭이 두창의 치료에 대한 의료 전문가를 위한 정보는 CDC 의 페이지에서 찾을 수 있습니다 : 의료 전문가를 

위한 치료 정보.

원숭이 두창에 대한 빠른 정보
Welcome to today’s 

FDA/CDRH Webinar

Thank you for your patience while additional 

time is provided for participants to join the call. 

Please connect to the audio portion of the 

webinar now:

U.S. Callers Dial: 888-455-1392

International Callers Dial: 1-773-799-3847

Passcode: 5207751
Protective Barrier 

Enclosures

U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

October 13, 2020
3

Protective Barrier Enclosures (PBEs)-

Product classification definition

• Protective Barrier EnclosureA transparent device designed to cover a patient’s head and upper body and 

incorporates one or more ports through which the health care provider’s (HCP) 

hands are passed to perform medical procedures, and provides an extra layer of 

barrier protection in addition to personal protective equipment (PPE).

• Procode: QLD

• Protective Barrier Enclosure with Negative PressureA barrier device with negative pressure which partially or fully covers a patient to 

prevent HCP exposure to pathogenic biological airborne particulates. These barrier 

devices include ports for medical care and/or procedures.

• Procode: QLE
4

Intended Use

Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for PBE with negative pressure have been 

authorized only for in-hospital use for:

• Airway management

• Respiratory treatments

• Direct transport to a different level of care within a hospital

• With nurse or physician in attendance monitoring:

– Electrocardiogram (EKG)

– Mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO2)

– End tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2)

– Temperature

• Increasing negative pressure treatment areas in a hospital

• Increasing contagious patient isolation areas in a hospital
5

Resources

Revocation of Umbrella EUA for Protective Barrier Enclosures:

https://www.fda.gov/media/141415/download

Protective Barrier Enclosures Without Negative Pressure Used During the COVID-19 Pandemic 

May Increase Risk to Patients and Health Care Providers - Letter to Health Care Providers:

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/letters-health-care-providers/protective-barrier-enclosureswithout-negative-pressure-used-during-covid-19-pandemic-may-increase

List of Authorized PBE EUAs:

https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policyframework/emergency-use-authorization

MDRs: Adverse Event Reporting for Medical Devices Under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) 

or Discussed in COVID-19-Related Guidance Documents: https://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/coronavirus-covid-19-and-medical-devices/adverse-event-reporting-medical-devices-underemergency-use-authorization-eua-or-discussed-covid-19
6

QUESTIONS?
7

Slide Presentation, Transcript and Webinar Recording 

will be available at:

www.fda.gov/training/cdrhlearn

Under Heading: Specialty Technical Topics and Sub-heading

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

Please complete a short survey about your FDA CDRH webinar 

experience. The survey can be found at www.fda.gov/CDRHwebinar

immediately following the conclusion of the live webinar.

Webinar Resources
[Cite as State v. Belanger , 2017-Ohio-146.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2016-04-070

: D E C I S I O N - vs - 1/17/2016 : JOHN WESLEY BELANGER, : Defendant-Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2013-04-0565

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee Neal D. Schuett, 121 West High Street, Oxford, Ohio 45056, for defendant-appellant

Per Curiam. {¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon a brief filed by appellant's counsel. {¶ 2} Counsel for appellant, John Wesley Belanger, has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by theButler CA2016-04-070

- 2 - trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists four potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine whether the proc eedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constituti onal rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. {¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having been received we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the tr ial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to wit hdraw as counsel is grant ed, and this a ppeal is dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

M. POWELL, P.J., HENDRICKSON and PIPER, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.2



                      Certification of CFO Pursuant to
                          18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                           as Adopted Pursuant to
               Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Niagara Corporation
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Raymond Rozanski, as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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



/s/ Raymond Rozanski
-----------------------
Raymond Rozanski
Vice President & Treasurer
August 14, 2002



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 17, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 17, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0216. LACEY ELAINE MANNING v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

16CR2001
#### Stivan SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-70344.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2004.*

Decided April 27, 2004.

Virender Kumar Goswami, Law Offices of Virender K. Goswami, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner. '

Stivan Singh, Salem, OR, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Margaret Perry, Esq., Lisa A. Watts, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Stivan Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.

Singh contends that the IJ’s failure to grant two continuances violated due process. Because Singh failed to raise this issue before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider it on appeal. *See Agyeman v. INS,*296 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir.2002) (exhaustion requirement applies to claim that alien was denied a full and fair hearing).

We also lack jurisdiction to consider Singh’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, *see Grava v. INS,*205 F.3d 1177, 1182 (9th Cir.2000), Singh’s claim that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was flawed, and the IJ’s failure to apprise Singh of the availability of relief under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, because Singh failed to raise these issues with the BIA. *See Rashtabadi v. INS,*23 F.3d 1562, 1567 (9th Cir.1994) (holding that challenges to procedural errors correctable by the administrative tribunal must be exhausted before this Court undertakes review).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 10.(b)




EXHIBIT 10 (b) 

RULE 30a-2(b) CERTIFICATION 







In connection with this report on Form N-CSR for the registrant as furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 





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

	
 
	
 
	
 

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











	
By:   
	
/S/ BRIAN T. ZINO 

	
 
	
Brian T. Zino 

	
 
	
Chief Executive Officer 

	
 
	
 

	
Date:   
	
March 1, 2004 

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 

	
By:   
	
/s/ LAWRENCE P. VOGEL 

	
 
	
Lawrence P. Vogel 

	
 
	
Chief Financial Officer 

	
 
	
 

	
Date:   
	
March 1, 2004
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
HUAFENG XU, Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

.

______________________

2014

- 5016

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:13

- cv

- 00261

- MMS, Judge Margaret M. Sweeney.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R
The court construes Huafeng Xu’s filing s as (1) a m otion for reconsideration of the January 6, 2014 order dismissing his case fo r failure to file a brief and (2) a motion to recuse the Clerk of Court

. Upon consideration thereof,

I T I S O RDERED T HA T : Case: 14-5016 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 01/31/2014XU v. US 2

(1) The motion for reconsideration is denied.
(2) The motion to recuse the Clerk of Court is denied.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Anne M. Tomlinson Anne M. Tomlinson Acting Chief Deputy Clerk

s26 Case: 14-5016 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 01/31/2014
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11838]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Information Collection Submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget for Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposal for the collection of information listed below has 
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 
35). Copies of the proposed collection of information and related forms 
may be obtained by contacting the Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) 
clearance officer at the telephone number listed below. Comments and 
suggestions on the proposal should be made directly to Reclamation's 
clearance officer and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork 
Reduction Project (1006-0005), Washington, DC 20503, Telephone 202-395-
7340.
    Title: Individual Landholder's Certification and Reporting Forms 
for Acreage Limitation, 43 CFR 426.
    OMB approval number: 1006-0005.
    Abstract: This information collection requires certain landholders 
to complete forms demonstrating their compliance with the acreage 
limitation provisions of Reclamation law. The forms establish each 
landholder's status with respect to landownership limitations, full-
cost pricing thresholds, lease requirements, and other provisions of 
reclamation law.
    Reclamation form numbers: 7-2178A, 7-2179A, 7-2180, 7-2180-EZ, 7-
2181, 7-2183, 7-2184, 7-2187, 7-2188, 7-2189, 7-2190, 7-2190-EZ, 7-
2191, 7-2193, 7-2194, 7-2197, 7-2198, and 7-2199.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Description of respondents: Owners and lessees of land on Federal 
Reclamation projects.
    Estimated completion time: .32 hours.
    Annual responses: 43,863.
    Annual burden hours: 14,116.
    Reclamation clearance officer: Marilyn Rehfeld, 303-236-0305 
(X459).

    Dated: April 5, 1995.
Alonzo D. Knapp,
Manager, Reclamation Law, Contracts, and Repayment Office.
[FR Doc. 95-11838 Filed 5-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-94-M