alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 65353]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30704]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[UT-020-06-1430-00]


Notice

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, DOI.

ACTION: Notice of intent to amend management framework plan.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is preparing an 
Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider a proposed amendment to the 
Park City Management Framework Plan (MFP). The proposed amendment would 
consider alternatives for additional opportunities for land tenure 
adjustments in Summit County.

DATES: The comment period for identification of issues for the proposed 
plan amendment will commence with the date of publication of this 
notice. Comments must be submitted on or before January 18, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leon Berggren, Bear River Resource 
Area Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake District, 2370 South 
2300 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84119, telephone (801) 977-4300. Existing 
planning documents and information are available at the above address 
or telephone (801) 977-4300. Comments on the proposed plan amendment 
should be sent to the above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bear River Resource Area of the Salt 
Lake District, BLM, is proposing to amend the Park City MFP to allow 
for land tenure adjustments on T. 2 S., R. 3 E., Section 10, NE\1/4\ 
not previously identified in the MFP. The main purpose is to identify 
and analyze the land for exchange to the State of Utah for acquisition 
of lands that results in a net gain of important and manageable 
resource values on public land. Lands transferred out of Federal 
ownership to State interests, as a result of the exchange, would be 
available to meet the various needs of the respective parties. Where 
there are specific uses proposed on lands identified for exchange, 
those uses will be analyzed. An environmental assessment (EA) will be 
prepared to analyze the impacts of this proposed plan amendment and 
alternatives.
    Public participation is being sought at this initial stage in the 
planning process to ensure the MFP amendment addresses all issues, 
problems and concerns from those interested in the management of lands 
within the Bear River Resource Area. Necessary amendments to the 
approved plan will keep the document current and viable.
David E. Little,
Acting State Director.
[FR Doc. 95-30704 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 10 - 00525 - CR

CHARLES LEVI MILLER APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 90TH DISTRICT COURT OF YOUNG COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- A jury convicted A ppellant Charles Levi Miller of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon , and the trial court se ntenced him to fifteen years’ confinement on Jun e 1 6 , 20 1 0. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial, so his notice of
appe al was due July 17, 2 010. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1) (providing that notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of sentencing in the absence of a timely

- filed motion for new trial). He did not file his notice of appeal until December 2 , 20 1 0; thus, it was untimely

.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Accordingly, we informed Appellant by letter on December 9 , 2010, that this appeal was subject to dismissal unless Appellant or any party showed grounds for continuing the appeal on or before December 20 , 2010. Appellant and his appointed counsel respon d ed , but t h e response s do not show grounds on which thi s court may rely for continuing this appeal. A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of rule 26 is essential to ves t this court with jurisdiction. Id. The Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls has expressly held that, without a timely filed notice of appeal or motion for extension of time, this court cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appe als may grant A ppellant an out

- of

- time appeal. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 20 10 ); Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 525 n.8; Cotton v. State , No. 02

- 1 0

- 00 0 0 1

- CR, 20 1 0 WL 520814 , at *1 ( Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Feb. 11, 2010 , pet. ref’d ) (mem. o p., not designated for publication). Because Appellant ’ s notice of appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1), 43.2(f). PER CURIAM
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )
DELIVERED: January 13, 2011
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000230

29-JAN-2019

09:47 AM
Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

-3.61 -4.35 -0.23 -0.31 -6% -7%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary

Social Security Administration

September 15, 2023

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: B7.3. Give credit to parents with a child under 6 for earnings for up to five years. The 

earnings credited for a childcare year equal one half of the SSA average wage index (about $33,074 in 

2023). The credits are available for all past years to newly eligible retired-worker and disabled-worker 

beneficiaries starting in 2024. The 5 years are chosen to yield the largest increase in AIME.

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Income rates under current law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under current law

Cost rates with this provision

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Current law With this provision
<PAGE>


                                   EXHIBIT 21


<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                 PERCENTAGE           STATE OF INCORPORATION
              PARENT                              SUBSIDIARY                    OF OWNERSHIP             OR  ORGANIZATION
              ------                              ----------                    ------------           ---------------------

<S>                                          <C>                                <C>                   <C>          
        HF Financial Corp.                   Home Federal Savings Bank              100%                    Delaware
                                                     
        HF Financial Corp.                    HomeFirst Mortgage Corp.              100%                  South Dakota
                                                    
        HF Financial Corp.                     HF Card Services L.L.C.               51%                  South Dakota
                                                    
    Home Federal Savings Bank                 Hometown Insurors, Inc.               100%                  South Dakota
                                         
    Home Federal Savings Bank             Mid-America Service Corporation           100%                  South Dakota
                                     
    Home Federal Savings Bank                         PMD, Inc.                     100%                  South Dakota
</TABLE>
           




The financial statements of HF Financial Corp. are consolidated
with those of its subsidiaries.





                                       1
Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in  Registration  Statement  No.
333-35580 of E Com Ventures,  Inc. on Form S-3 and  Registration  Statement Nos.
333-30882,  333-70608 and  333-119123 on Forms S-8 of our report dated April 27,
2005,  appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of E Com Ventures,  Inc. for
the year ended January 29, 2005.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Miami, Florida
April 27, 2005
#### STATE v. JAMES OTIS GREEN.

(Filed 10 April, 1957.)

Appeal by defendant from *Hall, J.,*January Term 1967 of WARREN.

This is a criminal action originally tried in the Recorder’s Court of Warren County upon a warrant charging the defendant with the unlawful possession of nontaxpaid liquor for the purpose of sale. From the judgment entered on a verdict of guilty, the defendant appealed to the Superior Court where he was tried on the original warrant and found guilty as charged. From the sentence imposed, the defendant appeals, assigning error.

*Attorney-General Patton and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.*

*G. M. Beam for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

A careful examination of the exceptions entered in the trial below and assigned as error, leads us to the conclusion that they present no prejudicial error. The evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury, and the verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 50229 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v. EMILIO RESENDEZ GOMEZ,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:08 -CR- 693 -5

Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Emilio Resendez Gomez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gomez ha s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 21, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-50229 Document: 00513920117 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2017No. 16

- 50229

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw
is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-50229 Document: 00513920117 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2017
**Exhibit 13.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT**

**TO SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Intertape Polymer Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey Crystal, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

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

Date: March 31, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,966
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,898
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,058
<PP&E>                                         117,471
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 186,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,286
<BONDS>                                        100,511
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,543
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   186,517
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,511
<CGS>                                            9,892
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,361
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,552
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    619
<INCOME-TAX>                                       173
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                446
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       446
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05


</TABLE>
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Level of Monthly Benefits

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						B1.5: Progressive price indexing (60th percentile) of PIA factors beginning with individuals newly eligible for OASDI benefits in 2030: Create a new bend point at the 60th percentile of the AIME distribution of newly retired workers. Maintain current-law benefits for earners at the 60th percentile and below. Reduce the 32 and 15 percent factors above the 60th percentile such that the initial benefit for a worker with AIME equal to the taxable maximum grows by inflation rather than the growth in the SSA average wage index.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3644 

To require the collection of certain data relating to Bureau of Land 

Management land acquisitions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2022 

Mr. BRAUN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To require the collection of certain data relating to Bureau 

of Land Management land acquisitions, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LAND ACQUI4 SITION DATA. 

5 The Secretary of the Interior (acting through the Di6 rector of the Bureau of Land Management) shall— 

7 (1) collect centralized data on land acquired for 

8 administration by the Bureau of Land Management 

9 using amounts from the Land and Water ConservaVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:28 Feb 15, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3644.IS S3644

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3644 IS

1 tion Fund established under section 200302 of title 

2 54, United States Code, including data on— 

3 (A) the method used for the acquisition; 

4 and 

5 (B) the type of interest acquired; 

6 (2) not later than 1 year after the date of en7 actment of this Act, and annually thereafter, submit 

8 to Congress a report describing the information col9 lected under paragraph (1); and 

10 (3) develop guidance to ensure that land acqui11 sition data collected under paragraph (1) is entered 

12 correctly and properly coded in the data system of 

13 the Bureau of Land Management. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
CERTIFICATION 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 of NASB Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Rhonda Nyhus, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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; and

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


August 14, 2003             By:  /s/ Rhonda Nyhus
                                 Rhonda Nyhus
                                 Vice President and Treasurer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to NASB Financial, Inc. and will be retained by NASB
Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.



This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein , and not for any
other purpose.

<Page>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________

)

COURTNEY ANTHONY BAILEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 08-0283 (CKK) 

)

UNITED STATES MARSHAL )

SERVICE et al., )

)

Defendants. )

___________________________________ )

)

COURTNEY ANTHONY BAILEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 08-0754 (CKK) 

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al., )

)

Defendants. )

___________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff actions were dismissed by final order on November 4, 2008. Plaintiff has taken

appeals from those final orders. He has also filed three successive motions in this court for relief

from the judgment in each of the cases, each of which has been denied with explanation. With

his appeals currently active, he now has filed a motion asking this court to enjoin deportation

proceedings. His motion will be construed as one for a preliminary injunction made under Rule

65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and denied. 

A preliminary injunction is emergency relief available only upon a showing that (1) the

moving party is substantially likely to succeed on the merits of the lawsuit; (2) he would suffer
-2-

irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; (3) the injunction would not substantially harm

other parties; and (4) the injunction would not substantially harm the public interest. Taylor v.

Resolution Trust Corp., 56 F.3d 1497, 1505-06 (D.C. Cir. 1995). The court concludes that the

plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits of his underlying action, a determination that the

court has explained multiple times elsewhere and declines to repeat here. See Bailey v. U.S.

Marshal Service, 584 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D.C. 2008); slip op. Bailey v. U.S. Marshall Service,

2008 WL 5133958 (D.D.C. Dec. 5, 2008); slip op. Bailey v. U.S. Marshall Service, Civil Action

No. 08-283 (CKK) (D.D.C. Apr. 2, 2009). 

In addition, plaintiff’s motion seeks an injunction that would restrain a non-party to this

lawsuit. The court is “powerless to issue an injunction against” a non-party. Citizens Alert

Regarding the Environment v. U.S. E.P.A., 259 F. Supp. 2d 9, 17 (D.D.C. 2003) (citing Fed. R.

Civ. P. 65(d)). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief to forestall deportation

proceedings is DENIED. 

 /s/ 

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY

Date: April 6, 2009 United States District Judge
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition

is not citable as precedent. It is a public record.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

E R R A T A

December 29, 2005

Appeal No. 05-3226, Kemp v. DVA

Non-Precedential Opinion

Decided November 10, 2005

Page 5, line 23 to page 6, line 1, delete the sentence “However, there is . . .

incomplete.”

Page 6, line 1, change, “Fur thermore, we” to —We—.
#### MRS. CALLIE C. YORK v. JOSEPH O. COLE and wife, SARAH FRANCIS COLE.

(Filed 4 May, 1950.)

Appeal by defendants from *Sharp, Special J.,*at January 11 Regular Civil Term, 1960, of GuilfoRd, High Point Division — heard upon motion of defendants for removal of the cause of action, as a matter of right, from Guilford County, North Carolina, to and for trial in Wake County, North Carolina, — possession of personal property being involved in the action.

The record shows that the cause came on for hearing before Sharp, S. J., assigned to hold the aforesaid Civil Term of the Superior Court, who, after reciting the procedural history of the action, finds “that on December 9, 1959, the defendants filed a motion in writing that the ‘cause of action for the recovery of the automobile and all other personal property described in the complaint, except the property described in paragraph 32 of the plaintiff’s amended complaint, be moved to Wake County for trial.’ ” It is there, that is, in paragraph 32, described as certain specific household and kitchen furniture owned by plaintiff of the approximate value of five thousand dollars, and located in her three houses in High Point.

And the record recites that after reading the pleadings and other papers filed in this case and hearing argument of counsel the court being of the opinion that the motion to remove as a matter of right should be denied, “ordered, adjudged and decreed that the motion to remove be and the same is hereby denied.”

Defendants except thereto and appeal therefrom to Supreme Court and assign error.

*486
      *J. W. Hinsdale, Thomas Turner for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Allen Langston for defendant appellants.*

PeR Curiam.

Consideration of the record on appeal reveals that the judgment from which, appeal is taken.is accordant with law. The recovery of the personal property in Wake County is but incidental to the main action. Hence the appeal is without merit, and patently is dilatory and frivolous. The judgment below is

Affirmed.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3557 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend the Quality 

Payment Program–Small Practice, Underserved, and Rural Support program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2022 

Mr. BENNET (for himself and Mr. CASSIDY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend 

the Quality Payment Program–Small Practice, Underserved, and Rural Support program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Practice, Under5 served, and Rural Support Program Extension Act of 

6 2022’’ or the ‘‘SURS Extension Act of 2022’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3557 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF QUALITY PAYMENT PROGRAM– 

2 SMALL PRACTICE, UNDERSERVED, AND 

3 RURAL SUPPORT PROGRAM. 

4 The first sentence of section 1848(q)(11)(B) of the 

5 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–4(q)(11)(B)) is 

6 amended by inserting ‘‘and for each of fiscal years 2022 

7 through 2027’’ before the period. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS