alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [License No. 02/02-0695]

Notice is hereby given that QS Capital Strategies II, L.P., 527 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10022, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concerns, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). QS Capital Strategies II, L.P. is proposing to provide financing to BrandMuscle, Inc. to support the Company's growth.

The proposed transaction is brought within the purview of § 107.730 of the Regulations because QS Capital Strategies, L.P., an Associate of QS Capital Strategies II, L.P., by virtue of Common Control as defined at § 107.50, holds a debt investment in BrandMuscle, Inc. and the proposed transaction would discharge an obligation to an Associate.

Therefore, the proposed transaction is considered self-deal pursuant to 13 CFR 107.730 and requires a regulatory exemption. Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction within fifteen days of the date of this publication to Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.

Thomas Morris,

Acting Associate Administrator, Director, Office of SBIC Liquidation, Office of Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2021-11503 Filed 6-1-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### Kenneth Zahl et al., Appellants, v Shirley S. Greenfield et al., Respondents.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover a down payment made on a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated March 31, 1989, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs, who contracted to buy the defendants’ residence, contend they continue to enjoy a right to cancel the contract of sale because of a claimed oral modification of a mortgage contingency clause, which modification would have effectively rendered the contract of sale, like the mortgage commitment the plaintiffs obtained, contingent upon the sale of the plaintiffs’ present home. However, the contract of sale could not be modified orally *(see, e.g.,*General Obligations Law § 15-301; *cf.,*General Obligations Law § 5-703). Further, at no time did the plaintiffs seek to exercise their right to cancel the contract in accordance with the contract terms. They simply failed to appear for the closing on the date and at the time specified by the defendants.

We find that the defendant sellers properly converted the original, nonfirm, closing date to one which was of the essence by giving clear and unequivocal notice to the plaintiffs that the firm date for closing would be September 30, 1988. The

*450plaintiffs received reasonable notice that they would have to close on or before that date. In a letter dated September 10, 1988, the defendants made time of the essence, and stated that the closing was to be held "not later than September 23, 1988”. In a letter dated September 24, 1988, the defendants extended the closing date until September 30, 1988, and the plaintiffs were notified that if they did not close on that date, they would be held in default *(see, Palmiotto v Mark,*145 AD2d 549, 550; *Woodwork Display Corp. v Plagakis,*137 AD2d 809, 812-813; *Shannon v Simon,*128 AD2d 859, 860). The plaintiffs’ failure to close on September 30, 1988, constituted a willful default, and the sellers were therefore entitled to retain the down payment *(see, Maxton Bldrs. v Lo Galbo,*68 NY2d 373, 381-382; *Palmiotto v Mark, supra,*at 550; *Woodwork Display Corp. v Plagakis, supra,*at 813-814; *cf., Kressel Rothlein & Roth v Gallagher,*155 AD2d 587).

We have considered the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 104 (Wednesday, June 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29580-29581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11705]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration Board, Farm Credit Administration.

ACTION: Notice, regular meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the 
Sunshine Act, of the forthcoming regular meeting of the Farm Credit 
Administration Board.

DATES: The regular meeting of the Board will be held June 10, 2021, 
from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board may conclude its business. 
Note: Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we will conduct the board 
meeting virtually. If you would like to observe the open portion of the 
virtual meeting, see instructions below for board meeting visitors.

ADDRESSES: To observe the open portion of the virtual meeting, go to 
FCA.gov, select ``Newsroom,'' then ``Events.'' There you will find a 
description of the meeting and a link to ``Instructions for board 
meeting visitors.'' See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further 
information about attendance requests.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale Aultman, Secretary to the Farm 
Credit Administration Board (703) 883-4009. TTY is (703) 883-4056.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Instructions for attending the virtual 
meeting: Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public, 
and parts will be closed. If you wish to observe the open portion, at 
least 24 hours before the meeting, go to FCA.gov, select ``Newsroom,'' 
then ``Events.'' There you will find a description of the meeting and a 
link to ``Instructions for board meeting visitors.'' If you need 
assistance for accessibility reasons or if you have any questions, 
contact Dale Aultman, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration 
Board, at (703) 883-4009. The matters to be considered at the meeting 
are as follows:

Open Session

Approval of Minutes

<bullet> May 13, 2021

New Business

<bullet> Bank Liquidity Reserve--Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Reports

<bullet> Quarterly Report on Economic Conditions and FCS Condition and 
Performance
<bullet> Semi-Annual Report on Office of Examination Operations

Closed Session

<bullet> Office of Examination Quarterly Report \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Closed session is exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 
552b(c)(8) and (9).


[[Page 29581]]


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

    Dated: May 28, 2021.
Dale Aultman,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 2021-11705 Filed 5-28-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 6141

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
CLAY JO MCCAULEY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:10

- cr - 00198

- WO

- 1 )

Submitted : July 9, 2021 Decided: July 28, 2021

Before KING, WYNN, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Clay Jo McCauley, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unp ublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Clay Jo McCauley appeals the district court’s order s denying his motions for a
reduction in sentence . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we aff irm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. McCauley , No. 1:10

- cr - 00198

- WO

- 1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 1, 2019 , & Feb. 10, 2020 ) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
AFFIRMED
JT UJooid ItLeh Xntocrx T^e TujeiT^ £W<r^ of

Jo Serd me IcH 7L 7/r^ojft^

D \H COUf "PEALS

12th CourtflfAppeate District

~X**.<&z&0U*\'^ Vf V^&l

/l/5o AH<
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Patricia FITZGERALD, Appellant. Patricia FITZGERALD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 61674, 63808.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Feb. 22, 1994.

Ellen H. Flottman, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, P.J., and CARL R. GAERTNER and AHRENS, JJ.

*ORDER*

*PER CURIAM.*

Defendant, Patricia Fitzgerald, appeals the judgment of murder in the first degree and armed criminal action and the denial of her Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm.

An Opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no prec-edential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only. This memorandum sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed according to Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b).
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 110 (Thursday, June 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 31001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12112]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-563, OMB Control No. 3235-0694]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 17g-10 and Form ABS Due Diligence--15E

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the 
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 17g-
10 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et 
seq.).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 17 CFR 240.17g-1 and 17 CFR 249b.300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17g-10 contains certain certification requirements for third-
party due diligence service providers that are employed by an NRSRO, an 
issuer, or an underwriter, which must be made on Form ABS Due 
Diligence--15E. The Commission estimates that the total burden for 
respondents to comply with Rule 17g-10 is 330 hours.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person 
shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection 
of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB 
control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information 
collection at the following website: >www.reginfo.gov<. Find this 
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day 
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. 
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to (i) >www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain< and (ii) David Bottom, 
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, 
c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by 
sending an email to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8adad8cbd5c7ebe3e6e8e5f2caf9efe9a4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e9b9bba8b6a48880858b8691a99a8c8ac78e869f">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: June 4, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-12112 Filed 6-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9457]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER95-830-000]


Southern California Edison Co.; Notice of Filing

April 12, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 31, 1995, Southern California Edison 
Company tendered for filing the following power sale agreement between 
the City of Colton (Colton) and Edison, and the associated supplemental 
agreement to integrate the power sale agreement in accordance with the 
terms of the 1990 Integrated Operation Agreement (1990 IOA), Rate 
Schedule FERC No. 249:

    1995 Power Sale Agreement Between The City of Colton and The 
Southern California Edison Company (1995 PSA).

    Supplemental Agreement for the Integration of the 1995 Power 
Sale Agreement Between Southern California Edison and The City of 
Colton (Supplemental Agreement).

    The 1995 PSA provides the terms and conditions whereby Edison shall 
make available and Colton shall purchase Contract Capacity and 
Associated Energy during the Delivery Season of June 1 through 
September 30 (4 months/year) during the years 1995, 1996, and 1997. The 
Supplemental Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions under which 
Edison will integrate the 1995 PSA pursuant to the 1990 IOA.
    Copies of this filing were served upon the Public Utilities 
Commission of the State of California and all interested parties.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before April 26, 1995. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-9457 Filed 4-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Aaron C. AUSTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 50910.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 13, 1996.

Rose M. Wibbenmeyer, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, David R. Truman, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and ULRICH and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Aaron C. Austin appeals the denial of his Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct the Judgment or Sentence, filed pursuant to Rule 24.035. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error. Because a published opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no precedential value, we affirm by this summary order under Rule 84.16(b). In addition, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth our reasoning.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 10.4.2

PREMIERWEST BANCORP

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR TOM ANDERSON

This Amendment dated effective January 5, 2009 (this Amendment) amends the EmploymentAgreement by and among PremierWest Bancorp, PremierWest Bank, and Tom Anderson dated as of July29, 2004 (the Employment Agreement).1.       Section 2.3 is amended in its entirety to read as follows:2.3Termination Upon Retirement. Unless sooner terminated, Executives employment shallterminate upon his Retirement (defined below).2.       Section 6.6 is amended in its entirety to read as follows:6.6Retirement. Upon Executive providing 90 days notice of his termination of employmentand Executive being at least 62 years old at the time of termination (Retirement).3.       Except as specifically set forth herein, the Employment Agreement as previously executed shallcontinue in full force and effect as written. Terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment shallhave the meanings set forth in the Employment Agreement.

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

|                                    |             
|----------------------------------- | ------------
|PREMIERWEST BANCORP                 | EXECUTIVE   
|                                   
|                                   
|By: _______________________________ |             
|James Ford                          | Tom Anderson
|President / Chief Executive Officer |             
|                                   
|PREMIERWEST BANK                    |             
|                                   
|                                   
|By: _______________________________ |             
|James Ford                          |             
|President / Chief Executive Officer |             

- 1 -

---
#### Norton Garfinkle, Respondent, v Pfizer, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered February 21, 1990, granting a motion by plaintiff Norton Garfinkle for summary judgment to the extent of declaring that the plaintiff is not bound by a restrictive covenant between him and defendant Oral Research Laboratories, and dismissing the counterclaims of the defendants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In view of the well-established considerations for enforcement of restrictive employment covenants *(see, Greenwich Mills Co. v Barrie House Coffee Co.,*91 AD2d 398, 400-401 [2d Dept 1983]), the defendants have failed to raise a triable issue of fact that would preclude summary judgment. There was no showing that the plaintiff employee is in possession of any trade secrets or other confidential information not available to the public at large. *(Primo Enter. v Bachner,*148 AD2d 350, 352 [1st Dept 1989].) Nor was there a showing that the plaintiff employee’s services were unique or extraordinary to an extent that would "make his replacement impossible or that the loss of such services would cause the employer irreparable injury.” *(Purchasing Assocs. v Weitz,*13 NY2d 267, 274 [1963].) In addition, as the IAS court noted, there is no showing by defendants that under these circumstances, a restrictive covenant, the geographic scope of which encompasses the entire world, is reasonable. We have reviewed defendants’ remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Asch, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K of EarthLink, Inc. (the “Company”) forthe year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kevin M. Dotts, ChiefFinancial 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, to myknowledge that:

(1)          the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ KEVIN M. DOTTS      |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
| Kevin M. Dotts          |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
| March 29, 2007          |   |

 

 

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 10, 2018

No. 04-18-00613-CV

IN THE INTEREST A. T., A CHILD,

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-PA-01707

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The reporter’s record was due September 7, 2018, but was not filed. This is an appeal in 

a parental termination matter. By statute, this appeal is accelerated and is to take precedence 

over other matters. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(a-1) (West Supp. 2017). Strict deadlines 

exist with regard to disposal of appeals dealing with termination of parental rights —

specifically, the appellate court must dispose of the appeal within 180 days of the date the notice 

of appeal is filed in the trial court. With regard to the appellate record, pursuant to Rule 35.3(c) 

of the appellate rules, this court may not grant an extension of more than ten days in an 

accelerated appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c). Moreover, and most importantly, extensions 

granted by this court “must not exceed 30 days cumulatively, absent extraordinary 

circumstances.” Id. R. 28.4(b)(3). 

We therefore ORDER court reporter Elva Chapa to file the reporter’s record in this court 

on or before September 20, 2018. With regard to termination appeals, in addition to the 

responsibility imposed on the trial court under Rule 35.3(c) — trial court is jointly responsible 

for ensuring the appellate record is timely filed — the trial court must direct the official or 

deputy reporter to immediately commence the preparation of the reporter’s record. Id. R. 

28.4(b)(1). The trial court must arrange for a substitute reporter if necessary to ensure the 

reporter’s record is timely filed. Id. 

We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel, the 

court reporter, and the trial court.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of September, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court