alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45984-45985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17645]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

[Public Notice: 2021-6019]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Submission for OMB review and comments request.

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

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), as part of 
its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, 
invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the 
proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995.

[[Page 45985]]


DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 18, 2021, to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on 
WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV (EIB 92-36) or by email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#96e2f7e4f7b8e6f3f8f2f3e4d6f3eefffbb8f1f9e0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="67130615064917020903021527021f0e0a49000811">[email protected]</span></a>, or by 
mail to Tara Pender, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 
Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20571. The application tool can be 
reviewed at: https://www.exim.gov/sites/default/files/pub/pending/eib92-36.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request additional information, 
please Tara Pender. 202-565-3655.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This collection of information is necessary, 
pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Sec. 635(a)(1), to determine eligibility of the 
applicant for EXIM assistance.
    Title and Form Number: EIB 92-36 Application for Issuing Bank 
Credit Limit (IBCL) Under Lender or Exporter-Held Policies.
    OMB Number: 3048-0016.
    Type of Review: Renewal.
    Need and Use: This form is used by an insured exporter or lender 
(or broker acting on its behalf) in order to obtain approval for 
coverage of the repayment risk of an overseas bank. The information 
received allows EXIM staff to make a determination of the 
creditworthiness of the foreign bank and the underlying export sale for 
EXIM assistance under its programs.
    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export 
of U.S. goods and services.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 600.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 1.2 hours.
    Annual Burden Hours: 720 hours.
    Frequency of Reporting of Use: As needed.
    Government Expenses:
    Reviewing time per year: 600 hours.
    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.
    Average Cost per Year: $25,500 (time * wages).
    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.
    Total Government Cost: $30,600.

Bassam Doughman,
IT Specialist.
[FR Doc. 2021-17645 Filed 8-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
; ; 

' '· 

v ' 

.·, .. 
J/J tL tc-w.i c/ 8~ ~ ~ 

:Jo..b.-~ JL ~ ~ .d4 t!oc4 A~ i ~ 

~·~~h~~~dJ;;.J 

~ ~~(oJL-A ~Ja...4-

4t.t.~ ... i rl~ 

:tL~o..~u/ ~ -~ ~~ 

~(D)k~~. 

~ 

M.s§~ 7#.~ ... 

~ 

:1~ ~ (~)~~~~~. 

M 

O . .,... J3iJJU-;4t ~ .;;/J ~ (D) ~ ~,d._ 'JS 

~.kv._~ .k ~~ ~ ~/L. ~~1/~~ 

-~ 

7L~k~otL. ~ Jkr~~~ 

~~ ~_./~~~L4~Q._~ 

~(D-J.k~~~4 

f~ 

t.v.W~~ ~- ~4u.t~~~~~ 

-~~a
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

KONRAD GARCIA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RAMONA PERRAULT, et al., 

Defendants. 

PAPAK, Magistrate Judge. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

2: 15-cv-00419-PK 

ORDER TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

AND TO COLLECT INMATE 

FILING FEE 

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Snake River Correctional 

Institution, moves to proceed in forma pauper is [1) . 

An examination of the application reveals that plaintiff is unable 

to afford the fees of this action. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that 

the provisional in forma pauperis status given the plaintiff is 

confirmed. 

Pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1915(b) (1), a prisoner proceeding in 

forma pauperis is required to pay the full filing fee of $350.00 

1 - ORDER TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND TO COLLECT INMATE 

FILING FEE 

Case 2:15-cv-00419-PK Document 6 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 3
when funds exist. Plaintiff has authorized the agency having 

custody of him to collect the filing fee from his prison trust 

account when funds exist. However, plaintiff has been without 

funds for the six months immediately preceding the filing of his 

complaint. Accordingly, the Court shall not assess an initial 

partial filing fee. 28 u.s.c. § 1915{b) (2). When funds exist, 

plaintiff shall be obligated to make monthly payments of 20 percent 

of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's trust 

account. These payments shall be collected and forwarded by the 

agency having custody of plaintiff to the Clerk of the Court each 

time the amount in plaintiff's trust account exceeds $10.00, until 

the filing fee is paid in full. Id. 

CONCLUSION 

Plaintiff's provisional in forma pauper is status is CONFIRMED. 

IT IS ORDERED that the Oregon Department of Corrections shall 

collect payments from plaintiff's prison trust account and shall 

forward those payments to the Clerk of the Court in accordance with 

the formula set forth above until a total of $350. 00 has been 

collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court. The payments 

shall be clearly identified by the name and number assigned to this 

action. 

Ill 

2 - ORDER TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND TO COLLECT INMATE 

FILING FEE 

Case 2:15-cv-00419-PK Document 6 Filed 08/27/15 Page 2 of 3
The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this 

order to 

IT IS 

DATED 

Oregon Department of Corrections 

Central Trust Unit 

P.O. Box 14400 

Salem, Oregon 97309 

SO ORDERED. 

this ;;r7+£-"ctay f-~ust, 015. 

... ~ u./C-- , 

Paul Papak 

United States Magistrate Judge 

3 - ORDER TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND TO COLLECT INMATE 

FILING FEE 

Case 2:15-cv-00419-PK Document 6 Filed 08/27/15 Page 3 of 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0713 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. S ILAS CORPRON,

Defendant and Appellant
.

ORDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including April 2 4 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 19 2020

03/19/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0713
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 January 31, 2014

s0127

Order 

Clerk

January 31, 2014

148156 & (38)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148156

COA: 312889

Saginaw CC: 11-035390-FH

DENNIS LEE MATZKE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

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

The application for leave to appeal the November 19, 2013 judgment of the Court of 

Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of People v McKinley 

(Docket No. 147391) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the decision in that 

case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we 

ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.
#### BRADY et al., Respondents, v. DUFFY, Appellant.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County,

Additional General Term.

December 16, 1895.)

Action by Thomas Brady and another against Michael E. Duffy. M. E. Duffy, in pro. per. Robert J. Mahon, for respondents.

No opinion. Judgment reversed; new trial ordered; costs to appellant to abide the event.
S. 1525

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight

An Act

To provide financial assistance for higher education to the dependents of Federal,

State, and local public safety officers who are killed or permanently and totally

disabled as the result of a traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty.

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 ‘‘Police, Fire, and Emergency

Officers Educational Assistance Act of 1998’’.

SEC. 2. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION TO

DEPENDENTS OF PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS KILLED OR

PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED IN THE LINE OF

DUTY.

Part L of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act

of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq.) is amended—

(1) in the heading for subpart 2, by striking ‘‘Civilian

Federal Law Enforcement’’ and inserting ‘‘Public Safety’’;

(2) in section 1211(1), by striking ‘‘civilian Federal law

enforcement’’ and inserting ‘‘public safety’’;

(3) in section 1212(a)—

(A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ‘‘Federal law

enforcement’’ and inserting ‘‘public safety’’;

(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘Financial’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘Except as provided in paragraph (3),

financial’’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(3) The financial assistance referred to in paragraph (2) shall

be reduced by the sum of—

‘‘(A) the amount of educational assistance benefits from

other Federal, State, or local governmental sources to which

the eligible dependent would otherwise be entitled to receive;

and

‘‘(B) the amount, if any, determined under section 1214(b).’’;

(4) in section 1214—

(A) by inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ before ‘‘The’’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(b) SLIDING SCALE.—Notwithstanding section 1213(b), the

Attorney General shall issue regulations regarding the use of a

sliding scale based on financial need to ensure that an eligible

dependent who is in financial need receives priority in receiving

funds under this subpart.’’;
S. 1525—2

(5) in section 1216(a), by inserting ‘‘and each dependent

of a public safety officer killed in the line of duty on or after

October 1, 1997,’’ after ‘‘1992,’’; and

(6) in section 1217—

(A) by striking paragraph (2); and

(B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 14, 2014

No. 04-11-00156-CR

Juan E. GUERRA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009CR13014

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Appellant’s appeal from his conviction was dismissed by this court on May 4, 2011, because the 

trial court’s certification of his right to appeal stated “this is a plea-bargain case, and defendant has NO 

right of appeal.” Our mandate issued on July 5, 2011. On April 9, 2014, appellant filed a “Motion for 

Intra Loan Statement of Facts and Transcription,” in which appellant asks this court to forward him a 

copy of the record for the purpose of filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

An indigent defendant ordinarily is not entitled to a free copy of his trial transcript for purposes of 

filing a postconviction habeas application. In re Strickhausen, 994 S.W.2d 936, 937 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding). A free record is available for that purpose only if the 

defendant shows the habeas corpus application is not frivolous and there is a specific need for the trial 

records that are sought. In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 693 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. 

proceeding). Appellant has not made any such showing here, especially in view of the trial court’s 

certification that he had no right to appeal. Therefore, appellant’s request is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on the 14th day of April, 2014.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>  This schedule contains summary financial
information extracted from Balance Sheets and Statements of
Operations for the year ended December 31, 1995 Form 10K of
Cinema Plus, L.P. and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
       
<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                      192,000
<SECURITIES>                           2,306,000
<RECEIVABLES>                          22,689,000
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                                 751,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         25,938,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     0
<BONDS>                                   0
<COMMON>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                             20,238,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           25,938,000
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       2,904,000
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,377,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            218,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          216,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        1,093,000
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      1,093,000
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,093,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               25.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0
        

</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 52006AP0470 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006AP0470

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America renewing the cooperation programme in the field of higher education and vocational education and training (COM(2006)0180 - C6-0174/2006 - 2006/0061(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 314 E , 21/12/2006 P. 0066 - 0066 *

P6_TA(2006)0470

EC-USA agreement in the field of higher education and vocational training *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America renewing the cooperation programme in the field of higher education and vocational education and training (COM(2006)0180 — C6-0174/2006 — 2006/0061(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2006)0180) [1],

- having regard to Article 300(2), first subparagraph, and Articles 149 and 150 of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0174/2006),

- having regard to Rules 51 and 83(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture and Education (A6-0339/2006),

1. Approves the conclusion of the Agreement;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and the parliaments of the Member States and the government of the United States of America.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
Non-qualified Option Forfeiture Agreement



 Exhibit 10.03 
 AGREEMENT TO FORFEIT NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTIONS 
 THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this
15th day of December, 2008 (the “Agreement Date”), is by and between (Employee Name) (the “Employee”) and Caraustar Industries, Inc. (the “Company”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company has adopted and sponsors the Caraustar Industries, Inc. 2003 Long-Term Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), under
which the Company is permitted to grant equity based incentive compensation to its employees; and 
 WHEREAS, one of the forms of
equity based compensation that may be granted under the Plan is non-qualified stock options; and 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Non-Qualified
Stock Option Award Agreement(s) entered into by and between the Company and the Employee under the Plan on the following award dates, the Company granted the Employee the stated number of non-qualified stock options, of which the stated number of
options were unexercised as of the Agreement Date: 
  

					
	 Award Date
	 	 Number of Stock Options
	 	 Unexercised Options On Agreement Date

	 [Various]
	 	[Various]	 	[Various]

 WHEREAS, the Employee and the Company agree that the non-qualified stock options that are
unexercised as of the Agreement Date (the “Unexercised Options”) have little or no value based on the Exercise Price for such Unexercised Options under the Award Agreement(s) and the current market conditions; and 
 WHEREAS, under the Plan, there are limits on the number of non-qualified stock options that the Company may grant; and 
 WHEREAS, upon the forfeiture of any unexercised non-qualified stock options granted under the Plan, the forfeited option shares will be available
for further grants under the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, both the Employee and the Company recognize that making the forfeited option shares
available for re-grant under the Plan is beneficial to both the Company and to all employees who participate in the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, the Employee wishes to forfeit the Employee’s Unexercised Options, so as to make them available for further grants under the Plan, and the Company wishes to agree to such forfeiture. 







 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED, by and between the Employee and the Company, that as of the date of
the Agreement Date, all Unexercised Options previously granted to the Employee are forfeited, and the Employee shall have no further rights in such Unexercised Options. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employee has executed this Agreement, and the Company has caused this Agreement to be executed in its name and on its behalf, all as of the date first set forth above. 
  

					
	“Employee”
		
	 (Employee Name)
	 	  (Seal)
	
	Dated: December 15, 2008
	
	“Company”
	
	Caraustar Industries, Inc.
			
	By:	 	 /s/ Michael J. Keough
	 	  (Seal)
	Its:	 	President and CEO
	Dated:	 	December 15, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1738 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1738

  To amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act to exclude Lake 
 Champlain from the definition of the Great Lakes, which was added by 
  the National Sea Grant College Program Reauthorization Act of 1998.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 10, 1998

  Mr. Abraham introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act to exclude Lake 
 Champlain from the definition of the Great Lakes, which was added by 
  the National Sea Grant College Program Reauthorization Act of 1998.

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF GREAT LAKES FOR NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE 
              PROGRAM ACT.

    Section 203 of the National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 
U.S.C. 1122) is amended in paragraph (5), as added by section 4(a)(3) 
of the National Sea Grant College Program Reauthorization Act of 1998, 
by striking ``includes Lake Champlain'' and inserting ``applies to Lake 
Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario''.
                                 <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-50172

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jarod Richard Melancon, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CR-507-1

Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jarod Richard Melancon, without a written plea agreement, pleaded 

guilty to drug trafficking and firearms charges, and the district court imposed 

a total sentence of 300 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Melancon 

contends that the district court plainly erred when calculating his guidelines 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 11, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-50172 Document: 00516542466 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/11/2022
No. 22-50172

2

range by applying the two-level aggravating role enhancement in U.S.S.G. 

§ 3B1.1(c). According to Melancon, the presentence report lacks factual 

predicates supporting that he either exercised control over others, including 

Nichole Sayre, or managed the criminal organization’s assets. He argues that 

applying the enhancement was clear or obvious error and that its effect on 

the calculation of his guidelines range satisfies plain error review.

Generally, we review the finding of an aggravating role adjustment for 

clear error. United States v. Anguiano, 27 F.4th 1070, 1074-75 (5th Cir. 2022). 

The sentencing court may “draw reasonable inferences from the facts, and 

these inferences are fact-findings reviewed for clear error as well.” Id. at 1073 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A factual finding that is 

plausible based on the record as a whole is not clearly erroneous.” Id. 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, because 

Melancon did not object to the § 3B1.1(c) enhancement in the district court, 

we review his challenges for plain error. See Anguiano, 27 F.4th at 1075.

The district court did not err in applying the § 3B1.1(c) enhancement

because the conclusion that Melancon exercised control over Sayre as a 

participant in the offense is plausible based on the record, which included 

evidence that Sayre helped Melancon distribute drugs and drug proceeds at 

his direction. See Anguiano, 27 F.4th at 1073; United States v. Turner, 319 

F.3d 716, 725 (5th Cir. 2003) (“When the evidence demonstrates that a 

defendant directed another in his drug trafficking activities, . . . sentence 

enhancement under § 3B1.1(c) is appropriate.”). Accordingly, the judgment 

of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-50172 Document: 00516542466 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/11/2022