alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 129 (Thursday, July 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40575-40576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14410]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration

ACTION: 30-Day notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking approval 
from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information 
collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction 
Act and OMB procedures, SBA is publishing this notice to allow all 
interested members of the public an additional 30 days to provide 
comments on the proposed collection of information.

DATES: Submit comments on or before August 8, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for this information 
collection request should be sent within 30 days of publication of this 
notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular 
information collection request by selecting ``Small Business 
Administration''; ``Currently Under Review,'' then select the ``Only 
Show ICR for Public Comment'' checkbox. This information collection can 
be identified by title and/or OMB Control Number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may obtain a copy of the 
information collection and supporting documents from the Agency 
Clearance Office at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d695a3a4a2bfa5f884bfb5be96a5b4b7f8b1b9a0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8dcef8fff9e4fea3dfe4eee5cdfeefeca3eae2fb">[email protected]</span></a>; (202) 205-7030, or from 
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The servicing agent agreement is executed by 
the borrower, and the certified development company as the loan

[[Page 40576]]

servicing agent. The agreement is primarily used by the certified 
development company as the loan servicing agent and acknowledges the 
imposition of various fees allowed in SBA's 504 loan program.

Solicitation of Public Comments

    Comments may be submitted on (a) whether the collection of 
information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its 
functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether 
there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of 
automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) 
whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of 
the information.

Summary of Information Collection

    OMB Control Number: 3245-0193.
    Title: Servicing Agent Agreement.
    Description of Respondents: SBA Borrowers.
    Form Number: SBA Form 1506.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 7,631.
    Total Estimated Annual Hour Burden: 7,631.

Curtis Rich,
Agency Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-14410 Filed 7-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-09-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Abatement Order filed September 4, 2014

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00683

- CV

____________ FREDERIC SCOTT DEAVE R , Appellant

V.

RIDDHI DESAI AND SHILPI PANKAJ DESAI , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 295th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014

- 18950



### ABATEMENT ORDER
According to information provided to this court, this appeal is from a judgment signed August 14, 2014 . Appellant filed a notice of appeal on August 20,
2014

. On August 25, 2014, a ppellant filed an affidavit of indigenc e in this court.
See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (h)

. On August 28, 2014, appellees filed a contest to appellant’s affidavit of indigence.

The R ules of Appellate Procedure permit appellant to file an affidavit of
ind igence in the appellate court. If the affidavit is filed in an appellate court, and acontest is filed, the court may refer the matter to the trial court with instructions to

hear evid ence and grant the appropriate relief. Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(h)(4).
Accordingly, we refer the matter to the trial court and ORDER the trial

court to hold a hearing and make written findings as to whether appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of c osts. The court reporter shall file a reporter ’ s record from the hearing and any exhibits admitted at the hearing on the contest to appellant ’s claim of indigence.
The record of the hearing and the trial court’s written findings shall be filed with
the c lerk of this court on or before 30 days from the date of this order.
The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court ’ s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court ’ s active docket when the
trial court ’ s ruling on i ndigenc e has been completed. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by any party. It is the responsibility of any party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to schedule a hearing in compliance with thi s court’ s order. If the parties do not request a hearing, the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date and notify the parties of such date.

PER CURIAM
STATE of North Carolina v. Wade Larry COLE.

No. 324A94-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

Marilyn G. Ozer, Chapel Hill, for Wade Larry Cole.

A. Danielle Marquis, Special Deputy Attorney General, Frank R. Parrish, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*923*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 4th day of May 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Camden County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th day of June 2005."
GRAHAM v. HOUSE

No. COA04-605

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 3, 2005.

Certification Date May 23, 2005.

Appeal from the Dare (04CVD34).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RIVER MASCARI,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00281-CR

Appeal from the

210th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20120D06125)

O R D E R

On November 1, 2016, Brock Benjamin, Appellant’s retained attorney, filed with this 

Court a motion to withdraw and appoint counsel. However, before this Court considers this 

motion, it will be necessary for the trial court to conduct a hearing.

Therefore, it is ORDERED that the trial court conduct a hearing in order to determine if 

the appellant is entitled to court-appointed counsel or if he wishes to proceed pro se. The trial 

court shall enter all necessary orders and/or findings which may include appointing counsel to 

represent Appellant on appeal. In the event Appellant elects to proceed pro se, the trial court 

shall make Appellant aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation and develop 

evidence as to whether appellant’s apparent decision to relinquish benefits associated with 

counsel and to proceed pro se is knowingly and intelligently made under Hubbard v. State, 739 

S.W.2d 341 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987)

The trial court shall forward its findings to the District Clerk of El Paso County, Texas, 

on or before November 23, 2016. The District Clerk shall prepare and forward a supplemental 

clerk’s record containing the findings and any order appointing counsel, and forward the same to 

this Court on or before December 3, 2016. Further, the transcription of the hearing shall be 

prepared, certified and filed with this Court on or before December 3, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3

rd day of November, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                    AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (the
"Agreement") is entered into as of July 19, 2005 by and between OptiCare Health
Systems, Inc. (along with its successors and assigns, the "Company") and
Christopher J. Walls ("Executive").

         WHEREAS, the Company entered into that certain Amended and Restated
Employment Agreement between OptiCare Health Systems, Inc. (along with its
successors and assigns) and Christopher J. Walls effective as of October 6,
2004.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual
covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and
Executive hereby agree to amend the Agreement as set forth below:

         Section 4(a)(i) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:

         (i)      salary continuation of the Base Salary (less customary
                  withholdings and authorized deductions) for a period of twelve
                  (12) months (the "Severance Period"), payable in accordance
                  with the Company's normal payroll practices;

         The remainder of the Agreement is unchanged.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as the
date first written above.

                                      OPTICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.


                                 By:
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Clark A. Johnson, Director and Chairman of
                                      the Compensation Committee



                                      EXECUTIVE



                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Christopher J. Walls
----

Action brought on 26 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-100/04)

(2004/C 94/65)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The time-limit for the transposition of the directive expired on 27 November 2002.

----

(1)  OJ 2001 L 316 of 1.12.2001, p. 5.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4891 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4891

     To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend for an 
   additional 5 years the special immigrant religious worker program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2007

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend for an 
   additional 5 years the special immigrant religious worker program.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SPECIAL IMMIGRANT RELIGIOUS WORKER PROGRAM.

    Section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(C)(ii)) is amended by striking ``2008,'' each place 
it appears and inserting ``2013,''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 1 shall take effect on October 1, 
2008.
                                 <all>
```
20 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2022

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions) 

Arctic Slope Regional Corp. $253.5 M

Brice Turnagain JV $176.7 M

Doyon Ltd. $103.3 M

Peter Kiewit Sons', Inc. $69.1 M

ARCTEC Alaska JV $59.2 M

Brookfield Business Partners, LP $56.0 M

Ciqima Federal Services, LLC $52.7 M

Brice Engineering, LLC $44.9 M

Environmental Chemical Corp. $38.1 M

Usibelli Coal Mine $35.1 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

ALASKA

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$1.9 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

28,452

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

Location Active

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Anchorage 9,580 3,210 2,588 714 16,092

Fairbanks North Star 8,786 1,819 737 77 11,419

Southeast Fairbanks 16 302 210 0 528

Denali 17 28 112 0 157

Matanuska-Susitna ND ND 102 ND ND

Kodiak Island 19 19 ND 0 ND

Juneau ND 11 ND 0 ND

Kenai Peninsula ND ND ND 0 ND

Ketchikan Gateway 0 ND ND 0 ND

Nome 0 ND 0 0 ND

Construction: 12% Research and

Development: 2%

Service: 70%

Supplies and

Equipment: 17%

Active Duty: 65%

Civilian: 19%

National 

Guard: 13%

Reserve: 3%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

46%

8%

27%

19%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

49%

1%

48%

3%

#30 #5 0.7% $5,460 #32 #36 #27 #23

$4.0 B SPENT 

IN STATE

6.3% OF 

STATE GDP

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER 

RESIDENT

$2.0 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

28,452 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$1.9 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

$73.5 M GRANT 

SPENDING

$1.3 $1.3 $1.4

$1.7 $1.8

$1.4 $1.6

$2.0

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2022 21

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

Matanuska−Susitna

Anchorage Kenai Peninsula

Juneau

Kodiak Island

Ketchikan Gateway

Southeast Fairbanks

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS

North Slope

Fairbanks North Star

Sitka

Aleutians West

Yakutat

FISCAL YEAR 2018 ALASKA

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2022

Anchorage

Fairbanks North Star

Aleutians West

Southeast Fairbanks

Denali

Kenai Peninsula

Sitka

Yakutat

North Slope

Aleutians East

(K = thousands, M = millions, B = billions)

$1.0 B

$451.4 M

$264.3 M

$149.8 M

$27.3 M

$15.6 M

$12.5 M

$12.4 M

$12.4 M

$9.8 M

Anchorage

Fairbanks North Star

Southeast Fairbanks

Denali

Kodiak Island

Matanuska-Susitna

Kenai Peninsula

Juneau

Ketchikan Gateway

Sitka

$1.1 B

$750.8 M

$46.6 M

$14.6 M

$3.2 M

$2.8 M

$820.4 K

$784.0 K

$467.9 K

$6.7 K

Denali

Anchorage

Fairbanks North Star

Denali

Southeast Fairbanks

Kenai Peninsula

Aleutians East

Sitka
IN RE M.S.

No. COA04-1153

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed July 19, 2005

Certification Date August 8, 2005

Appeal from Catawba (01J243).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Regulatory Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

July 22, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

# PLACE: 

                        The meeting will take place virtually and be accessible through the Commission's website at                         *http://www.prc.gov.*

# STATUS: 

The Postal Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting to discuss the agenda item outlined below.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

The agenda for the Commission's July 22, 2022 meeting includes the item identified below.

# PORTIONS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:

 1. Commissioners meet to discuss and vote on a Fiscal Year 2023 budget to submit to the Postal Service Governors for consideration pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 504(d).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

                        David A. Trissell, General Counsel, Postal Regulatory Commission, 901 New York Avenue NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268-0001, at 202-789-6820 (for agenda-related inquiries) and Erica A. Barker, Secretary of the Commission, at 202-789-6800 or                         *erica.barker@prc.gov*                         (for changes in date or time of the meeting, the virtual webcast, or similar matters). The Commission's website may also provide information on changes in the date or time of the meeting.                    

By the Commission.

Erica A. Barker,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-14324 Filed 6-30-22; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
#### BEECHER v. SMITHSON et al.

No. 13693.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

June 12, 1953.

S. P. Beecher, in pro. per., for appellant.

John J. Ripple, Spokane, Wash., for ap-pellee Smithson.

Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and ORR and POPE, Circuit judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee Smithson moves to dismiss Beecher’s appeal, notice of which was filed on December 15, 1952, on the grounds (1) that the appeal bond as security for costs on appeal required by Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 73(c), 28 U.S.C.A. has not been filed; (2) although the notice of appeal was filed on December 15, 1952, the designation of the record to be printed was not made or served until April 28, 1953, thus violating Fed.R.Civ.P. rule 75(a); (3) The designation of the record made does not “distinctly and accurately refer to the pages of the original certified record” as required by Rule 19-6 of the Rules of this court, so that the clerk cannot ascertain definitely which portions of the record should be printed and the appellee cannot make a proper counter-designation.

These facts constitute a proper basis for a dismissal of the appeal. Fed.R.Civ.P. rule 73(a).

The appeal is ordered dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. §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 T Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Patrick Howard, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Ken Bramlage, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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.





T BANCSHARES, INC.Date: June 21, 2011
By:
/s/ Patrick HowardPatrick Howard

President & Chief Executive OfficerDate: June 21, 2011
By:
/s/ Ken BramlageKen Bramlage

Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
92 Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016

 Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquisition Policy; DoD’s Military Installations, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau; and Unitedstateszipcodes.org.

PENNSYLVANIA

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

FISCAL YEAR 2016

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$2.2 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

57,722

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Total* Active Duty Civilians

Military

Philadelphia 10,155 562 8,194

Cumberland 5,849 1,131 4,299

Allegheny 5,506 591 1,473

York 4,450 427 3,518

Lebanon 4,182 ND 1,131

Monroe 3,379 32 3,072

Franklin 2,702 ND 2,148

Dauphine 2,542 87 480

Montgomery 2,144 60 396

Cambria 1,629 26 241

*Total also includes uniformed National Guard and Reserve units.

National Guard/

Reserve: 48%

Active Duty: 6%

Civilian: 46%

58%

17%

11%

14%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

By Type

Service: 14%

Research and 

Development: 4%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 81%

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M=millions B=billions)

Bechtel Group $2.2 B

AmerisourceBergen $2.1 B

Boeing $1.0 B

Lockheed Martin $859.6 M

BAE Systems $606.4 M

Northrop Grumman $346.7 M

Maritime Helicopter Support $305.9 M

Pennsylvania State University $158.8 M

Leonardo S.p.A. (Finmeccanica) $127.4 M

Huntington Ingalls $123.7 M

$11.1 $11.8

$10.3 $9.6

$14.3

$11.4 $10.6 $10.5

24%

35%

9%

32%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)

Construction: 1%
Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016 93

Allegheny

Philadelphia

Monroe

Montgomery 

Franklin 

Cumberland York 

Dauphin

Allegheny

Philadelphia

Bucks

Montgomery 

Chester 

Lancaster

York 

Cambria Delaware

Philadelphia County

$688.9 M

Cumberland County

$379.9 M

York County 

$247.8 M

Monroe County

$194.6 M

Allegheny County

$146.3 M

Franklin County

$138.2 M

Lebanon County

$92.5 M

Dauphin County

$44.8 M

Montgomery County

$36.0 M

Adams County

$33.2 M

(M=millions)

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions) (M=millions)

Chester County

$2.4 B

Allegheny County

$2.2 B

Delaware County

$1.2 B

Bucks County

$768.0 M

Montgomery County

$620.2 M

Philadelphia County

$488.2 M

York County

$485.7 M

Cambria County

$427.6 M

Cumberland County

$306.4 M

Lancaster County

$236.9 M

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions B=billions)

#7

$12.7 B 

SPENT IN STATE

#29

1.7% OF STATE GDP

3.4%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

$995

PER RESIDENT

#7

$10.5 B CONTRACT

SPENDING

#19

57,722 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

#18

$2.2 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

FISCAL YEAR 2016 PENNSYLVANIA

Lebanon

Adams

Cumberland

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active