alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 246 (Friday, December 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 66543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31190]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project No. 2413-026 Georgia]


Georgia Power Company; Notice of Availability of Environmental 
Assessment

December 18, 1995.
    An environmental assessment (EA) is available for public review. 
The EA is for an application to amend the license for the Wallace 
Project. The application is to exchange approximately 500 acres of 
project lands for approximately 500 acres of non-project lands located 
on the shores of Lake Oconee. The EA finds that approval of the 
application would not constitute a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment. The Wallace Project is 
located on the Oconee River in Greene and Putnam Counties, Georgia.
    The EA was written by staff in the Office of Hydropower Licensing, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Copies of the EA are available 
for review at the Commission's Reference and Information Center, Room 
2-A, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Copies can also be 
obtained by calling the project manager listed below.
    Please submit any comments within 20 days of the date of this 
notice. Comments should be addressed to Lois D. Cashell, Secretary, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426. Please affix the project number to all comments. For further 
information, please contact the project manager, Jon Cofrancesco at 
(202) 219-0079.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-31190 Filed 12-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
## Reports from the Board of Trustees

- Office of the Chief Actuary
- 2024 Trustees Report
- Actuarial Publications

Special reports on OASI or DI Trust Fund assets dropping below 20 percent of annual cost within 10 years: 

 2024 Letter to the President of the Senate 2024 Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives

 2023 Letter to the President of the Senate 2023 Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives

 2018 Letter to the President of the Senate 2018 Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives

 2017 Letter to the President of the Senate 2017 Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives

 2016 Letter to the President of the Senate 2016 Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives

 2015 Letter to the President of the Senate 2015 Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives

 2015 Letter to the President of the Senate 2015 Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives

 2014 Letter to the President of the Senate 2014 Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives

 2013 Letter to the President of the Senate 2013 Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives

 2012 Letter to the President of the Senate 2012 Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives

 2011 Letter to the President of the Senate 2011 Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives

 2010 Letter to the President of the Senate 2010 Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives

 1994 Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives

 1993 Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives

 1992 Letter to the President of the Senate 1992 Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives 1992 Supplemental Analysis Report

Footer menu
<PAGE>

Exhibit 21.1

                                     RETIX
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


                                                               OTHER NAME(S)
                                JURISDICTION                  UNDER WHICH THE
                                     OF                       SUBSIDIARY DOES
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY              INCORPORATION                     BUSINESS

Internetworking Solutions        California                    Retix Network
                                                               Systems

Wireless Solutions               California                    Retix Wireless

Retix Australia, Pty, Ltd.       Australia                     None

Retix Property Company, Ltd.     Netherlands                   None

Retix Canada Inc.                Canada                        None

Retix (Deutschland) GmbH         Germany                       None

Retix Europe, Ltd.               United Kingdom                Retix Network
                                                               Systems

Retix UK, Ltd.                   United Kingdom                Retix Network
                                                               Systems

Recodif Retix France (TM)        France                        None

Retix Italia SARL                Italy                         None

Retix V.I., Ltd.                 U.S. Virgin Islands           None

Vertel Corporation               California                    Telaware,
                                                               Telegenics

Retix B.V.                       Netherlands                   Retix Ireland

Vertel Pacific                   California                    None
Exhibit 10.11



 Exhibit 10.11 
 Loan Officer Incentive Bonus Plan Summary 
  

	1.	 The officer must be employed on December 31st of each year to be eligible for payment of any bonus earned. 


  

	 	•	 	 Officers eligible for bonus are listed below: 


  

	 	•	 	 James R. A. Stanley, Jr.—Executive VP & Chief Credit Officer 


  

	 	•	 	 Keith B. Hawkins – Executive VP and Commercial Loan Officer 


  

	 	•	 	 J. Frank Taylor – Vice President 


  

	 	•	 	 John T. Mounie – Assistant Vice President 


  

	 	•	 	 Suzanne C. Galbreath – Branch Manager 


  

	 	•	 	 Certain standards apply to the satisfactory performance of the officers loan portfolio. 


  

	2.	Incentive Bonus – Officer will be paid $1,500 per each $1 million in average loans produced in excess of the previous year’s average loans. 

  

	3.	Minimum Requirement – Officer’s portfolio must reach a minimum of $8 million in average outstanding loans before he/she is eligible for the Incentive Bonus.


  

	4.	The Bank’s minimum after tax earnings must reach 75% of budget before Bonus is paid.
*

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 04-51176

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 Plaintiff - Appellee

 v.

AUSENCIO MAURICIO ROSALES-VEGA also known as, Mauricio Vega

 Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas, El Paso

3:04-CR-689-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

IT IS ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate the

sentence is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to

remand case to the United States District Court for the Western

District of Texas, El Paso Division, for resentencing is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion in

the alternative to extend time to file appellee’s brief until 14

days from the Court’s denial of appellee’s motion to vacate and

remand is DENIED as moot.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 14, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3412 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3412

 To prohibit the use of Federal funds to enforce the rule submitted by 
   the Department of Health and Human Services relating to COVID-19 
         vaccine and mask requirements for Head Start programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 16, 2021

Mr. Thune (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Braun, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Crapo, 
Mr. Hawley, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Lankford, Ms. 
Lummis, Mr. Moran, Mr. Risch, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Scott of South 
   Carolina, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Wicker, and Mr. Cruz) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the use of Federal funds to enforce the rule submitted by 
   the Department of Health and Human Services relating to COVID-19 
         vaccine and mask requirements for Head Start programs.

    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 ``Preventing Mandates on Toddlers 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING THE HHS RULE ON HEAD START COVID VACCINE 
              AND MASK REQUIREMENTS.

    Notwithstanding any other law, no funds appropriated or otherwise 
made available to the Department of Health and Human Services shall be 
obligated or expended to--
            (1) implement or enforce the rule submitted by the 
        Department of Health and Human Services relating to ``Vaccine 
        and Mask Requirements To Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 in 
        Head Start Programs'' (86 Fed. Reg. 68052 (November 30, 2021)); 
        or
            (2) promulgate, implement, or enforce any rule, regulation, 
        or other agency statement, that is substantially similar to the 
        rule described in paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE v. JAMES EDWARD MILLER.

(Filed 20 March, 1957.)

Appeal by defendant from *Huskins, J.,*1 October, 1956 “A” Term, MecKlenbueg Superior Court.

■ This criminal prosecution resulted in a conviction of involuntary manslaughter. From the judgment imposed, the defendant appealed, assigning as error the refusal of the court to grant his motion for a directed verdict.

*George B. Patton, Attorney General, and T. W. Bruton, Asst. Attorney General, for the State.*

*Ray S-. Farris and James B. Ledford for defendant, appellant.*

PER CuRiam.

The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, is sufficient to go to the jury on the question of defendant’s Gulpable-negligence in the operation of the automobile in which the deceased was riding and to sustain a conviction of involuntary manslaughter. No valid reason is made to appear why the judgment should be disturbed.

No error.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Unify Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven D. Bonham, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), that, to the best of my knowledge:

|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and                                                             
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.

December 14, 2007

| | /s/ STEVEN D. BONHAM    | 
| | ----------------------- | 
| | Steven D. Bonham       
| | Chief Financial Officer



|A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

64

---
knwn_ex101.htm

EXHIBIT 10.1 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO
 10% CONVERTIBLE REDEEMABLE NOTE
 DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2016
  
 This AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO 10% REDEEMABLE nOTE dated SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of December 7, 2022, by and between Clayton A. Struve (the “Holder”) and Know Labs, Inc., a Nevada corporation f/k/a Visualant, Incorporated (the “Company”).
  
 RECITALS
  
 WHEREAS, the Company is a party to that certain 10% Convertible Redeemable Note, dated September 30, 2016, as amended (as so amended, the “Note”), payable to Holder (capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings set forth in the Note);
  
 WHEREAS, the Note currently has a Maturity Date of September 30, 2022; and
  
 WHEREAS, the Holder and the Company wish to amend the Note to extend the Maturity Date by one year, in exchange for which the Company will agree to extend the termination date of warrants held by the Holder by one year, pursuant to the terms and conditions of an Extension of Warrant Agreement to be entered into between the Company and the Holder simultaneously with this Amendment (the “Extension Agreement”).
  
 AGREEMENT
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree to the following.
  
 1. Amendment of Maturity Date. Subject to and in exchange for the Company’s entry into the Extension Agreement, the Maturity Date of the Note is hereby amended to September 30, 2023.
  
 2. Effect of Amendment. The parties hereto agree that the amendments described above are effective retroactively to September 30, 2022. Except as specifically set forth in this Amendment, the terms of the Note remain in full force and effect. 
  
 3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Counterparts may be delivered via facsimile, electronic mail (including pdf or any electronic signature complying with the U.S. federal ESIGN Act of 2000, e.g., www.docusign.com) or other transmission method and any counterpart so delivered shall be deemed to have been duly and validly delivered and be valid and effective for all purposes.
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.
  
 	 Company:
	 Holder:

	  
	  
	  
	  
	  

	 KNOW LABS, INC.
	 CLAYTON A. STRUVE
	  

	  
	  
	  
	  
	  

	 By: 
	 /s/ Ronald P. Erickson 
	 By:
	 /s/ Clayton A. Struve 
	  

	 Name:
	 Ronald P. Erickson 
	  
	 Clayton A. Struve
	  

	 Title:
	 Chairman
## Summary of Provisions That Would Change             the Social Security Program

- Office of the Chief Actuary
- Individual Provisions

### **Description of Proposed Provisions:              Provisions Affecting Taxation of Benefits**

Printer-friendly Version
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.2



                 CONSENT OF KPMG PEAT MARWICK, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Unify Corporation:

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-13203) on Form S-8 of Unify Corporation of our report dated May 17, 1996,
relating to the consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' deficit,
and cash flows of Unify Corporation and subsidiaries for the year ended April
30, 1996, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in
the April 30, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of Unify Corporation. 


KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Mountain View, California
July 16, 1998
#### THEODORE G. EMPIE, Trustee of the Estate of SWIFT M. EMPIE et al., v. ADAM EMPIE et al.

(Filed 2 April, 1930.)

Wills E f — Upon bequest in trust for legatee for life then to his brothers or then* heirs, children of deceased brothers take per stirpes.

Where a will creates a trust estate to be held for the benefit of a legatee during his life, and at his death to be held for the benefit of his wife and children, and at the death of his wife the trust to be terminated and the funds to be divided among his children or their heirs, and if no children, to be divided among his brothers and sisters or their heirs: *Held,*upon *563the death of the first taker -unmarried leaving brothers and sisters living and children of deceased brothers and sisters, the personal property held in trust should be divided among the surviving brother and sisters and the children of the deceased brothers and sisters *per stirpes.*

Appeal by plaintiffs' from *Grady, J.,*at December Term, 1929, of New HaitoveR.

Affirmed.

*Rodgers & Rodgers for plaintiff.*

*Bellamy & Bellamy for defendants Charlotte P. B'cdley, Edward P. Bailey, Clarice Bailey, Francis B. Kidder, and Virginia B. Chisholm.*

*J. 0. Carr for defendant, Mamie A. Empie.*

Pee Cubiam.

Virginia G. Empie died 17 June, 1918, leaving a will in which, after making provision for continuing the trust created for Swift M. Empie if any of the designated trustees should die, the testatrix made this bequest: “Should Swift M. Empie marry, then the money held in trust for him, at his death, shall be held in trust for his wife or children, and at his wife’s death, be divided equally among his children or their heirs. In case there are no children of the said Swift M. Empie, at his wife’s death, the fund held by his trustee is to be divided among his brothers and sisters, or their heirs.”

Swift M. Empie died 28 November, 1928, unmarried, leaving as the only survivors among his brothers and sisters Theodore G. Empie and Adam Empie. He survived other brothers and sisters who died leaving children. Upon the facts set out in the judgment the trial court held that the testatrix intended that at the death of Swift M. Empie the personal property in the hands of the trustee should pass to his surviving brothers and sisters, and to the heirs of the brothers and sisters who had predeceased him *per stirpes*and not *per cgpita.*The plaintiffs excepted and appealed.

The judgment is sustained by *Mercer v. Downs,*191 N. C., 203, in which the devise was in words almost identical with those in case under consideration. This decision has been cited and approved in a number of cases, among them *Jessup v. Nixon,*196 N. C., 33, and *Waller v. Brown,*197 N. C., 508.

Upon the facts appearing of record we are of opinion that the trustee was not entitled to commissions as a matter of legal right.

Judgment affirmed.
### Proposed Provision: E2.4. Eliminate the taxable maximum for years 2030 and later (phased in 2024-2030), and apply full 12.4 percent payroll tax rate to all earnings. Provide benefit credit for earnings above the current-law taxable maximum that are subject to the payroll tax, using a secondary PIA formula. This secondary PIA formula involves: (1) an "AIME+" derived from annual earnings from each year after 2023 that were in excess of that year's current-law taxable maximum; (2) a new bend point equal to $9,360 in 2024, indexed by wages after 2024; and (3) formula factors of 3 percent and 0.25 percent below and above the new bend point, respectively.
## Court of Appeals

Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler



## B I L L O F C O S T S

Court of Appeals No. 12-17-00116-CV

Trial Court No. 00375-CCL-16

Zelena Barbay

Vs.

Mary McCarty, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Stanley

William Taraba

DOCUMENTS FILED AMOUNT FEE PAID BY

Clerk's record

Reporter's record

Motion fee

Required Texas.gov efiling fee

Indigent

Filing

Supreme Court chapter 51 fee $56.00

$91.00

$10.00

$30.00

$25.00

$100.00

$50.00 CHRISTOPHER TINSLEY

Appellant Zelena Barbay

Judy Emerson

Judy Emerson

Judy Emerson

Judy Emerson

Judy Emerson

TOTAL: $362.00

I, Pam Estes, Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler, Texas,

certify that the above copy of the Bill of Costs is true and correct. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND

AND SEAL OF SAID COURT, at Tyler, this 1st day of December 2017

, A.D.

PAM ESTES, CLERK

By:

_____________________________ Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5371 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5371

  To prohibit the use of Federal funds and the provision of technical 
 assistance for the Heritage Partnership Program and National Heritage 
                                 Areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2014

  Mr. Salmon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the use of Federal funds and the provision of technical 
 assistance for the Heritage Partnership Program and National Heritage 
                                 Areas.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR NATIONAL HERITAGE 
              AREAS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be 
used and no Federal technical assistance may be provided for the 
following:
            (1) The Heritage Partnership Program.
            (2) Any National Heritage Area.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21 - 0154

_________________ DENIS AGUADO,

Petitioner and Appellant, v. ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant t o the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Denis Aguado, to all counsel of r ecord , and to the Honorable Randal I . Spaulding , District Judge . For the Court,

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

June 15 2022

06/15/2022
Case Number: DA 21-0154
### Proposed Provision: F10. Expand the tax on net investment income (NII) as defined in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to cover earnings from active S corporation holders and active limited partners. Apply a 12.4-percent tax on this expanded definition of NII, payable to the OASI and DI Trust Funds with specified thresholds, effective for 2024 and later. The unindexed thresholds for this provision are $400,000 for a single filer and $500,000 for a married couple filing jointly. The NII tax would apply to the lesser of NII and the excess of modified adjusted income (MAGI) above the unindexed thresholds.