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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1749 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1749

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 685 Turnberry Road in Newport News, Virginia, as the ``Herbert H. 
                    Bateman Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2001

Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia (for herself, Mr. Schrock, Mr. Scott, Mr. 
 Goode, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Boucher, 
Mr. Wolf, and Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia) introduced the following bill; 
           which was referred to the Committee on Government
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 685 Turnberry Road in Newport News, Virginia, as the ``Herbert H. 
                    Bateman Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. HERBERT H. BATEMAN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 685 Turnberry Road in Newport News, Virginia, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Herbert H. Bateman Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Herbert H. 
Bateman Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 18, 2022

No. 04-22-00359-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.E.J.A., a Child

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

Trial Court No. 2021-PA-00362

Honorable Monique Diaz, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of an order in a suit for termination of the parent-child 

relationship that must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of 

appeal was filed in the trial court. See TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. Appellant timely filed a notice 

of appeal on June 16, 2022. Accordingly, the record was due June 27, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

26.1(b), 35.1(b). The record was not filed. On July 1, 2022, we ordered the court reporter, 

Sachiko Nagao, to file the reporter’s record by July 7, 2022. 

As of this date, the court reporter has not filed the reporter’s record or a notification of 

late record. We order the court reporter, Sachiko Nagao, to file the reporter’s record by July 25, 

2022. If the record is not received by such date, an order may be issued directing Ms. Nagao to 

appear before this court in person and show cause why she should not be held in contempt for 

failing to file the record. The clerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to be served on 

Ms. Nagao by certified mail, return receipt requested. Because “[t]he trial and appellate courts 

are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed,” TEX. R. APP. P. 

35.3(c), the clerk of the court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Honorable Monique 

Diaz, Judge of the 438th Judicial District Court. 

It is so ORDERED on July 18, 2022.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT

FILE COPY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-47-01-JD

Robert S. Levine

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: Document No. 87, Motion for Assessment and Restitution 

Ruling: After considering this request, the court

orders that restitution be deferred until the defendant

is placed on supervised release. Modest contributions to

the defendant’s trust account by relatives should not be

considered in the restitution formula. The defendant is

ordered to report promptly to the court any substantial

resources he may receive in the future from any source at

which time the court will reconsider this order. 18

U.S.C. § 3613A. 

______________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

District Judge 

October 5, 2006

cc: Robert S. Levine, pro se

David L. Broderick, Esquire

U.S. Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00047-JD Document 89 Filed 10/05/06 Page 1 of 1
# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ WILLIAM D. SLONE, (ALSO KNOWN AS WILLIAM D. SLOAN), Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee.

______________________

2013

- 5128

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 13

- CV

- 0424, Judge Charles F. Lettow.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

The United States moves for leave to file an amended certificate of service and for an extension of time for the appellant to file a reply brief.
Mr. Slone moves for relief of judgment. The United States moves for an extension of time to file a response to the motion for relief of judgment. Arguments concerning the merits of the case should be in the briefs.
Upon consideration thereof, Case: 13-5128 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 10/22/2013SLONE v. US 2

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The United States’ motion s for leave to file an amended certificate of service is granted. The motion for
an exte n sion of time for Mr. Slone to file a reply brief i s moot. (2) Mr. Slone’s motion for relief of judgment is denied without prejudice . The United States’ motion for an
exten sion of time to file a respo nse is granted

. F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk

s21 Case: 13-5128 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 10/22/2013
Exhibit 4.2.2

 

CROSS-REFERENCE TABLE*

 

	
Trust Indenture Act Section
    	
 
    	
Indenture Section
    
	
310(a)(1)
    	
 
    	
10.10
    
	
(a)(2)
    	
 
    	
10.10
    
	
(a)(3)
    	
 
    	
N/A
    
	
(a)(4)
    	
 
    	
N/A
    
	
(a)(5)
    	
 
    	
10.10
    
	
(b)
    	
 
    	
10.08, 10.10
    
	
311(a)
    	
 
    	
10.11
    
	
(b)
    	
 
    	
10.11
    
	
312(a)
    	
 
    	
2.06
    
	
(b)
    	
 
    	
16.03
    
	
(c)
    	
 
    	
16.03
    
	
313(a)
    	
 
    	
10.06, 16.02
    
	
(b)(1)
    	
 
    	
N/A
    
	
(b)(2)
    	
 
    	
10.06
    
	
(c)
    	
 
    	
10.06
    
	
(d)
    	
 
    	
10.06
    
	
314(a)
    	
 
    	
7.03, 7.04
    
	
(b)
    	
 
    	
N/A
    
	
(c)(1)
    	
 
    	
16.04
    
	
(c)(2)
    	
 
    	
16.04
    
	
(c)(3)
    	
 
    	
N/A
    
	
(d)
    	
 
    	
14.05
    
	
(e)
    	
 
    	
16.05
    
	
(f)
    	
 
    	
N/A
    
	
315(a)
    	
 
    	
10.01(b)
    
	
(b)
    	
 
    	
10.05
    
	
(c)
    	
 
    	
10.01(a)
    
	
(d)
    	
 
    	
10.01(c)
    
	
(e)
    	
 
    	
9.11
    
	
316(a)(last sentence)
    	
 
    	
2.10
    
	
(a)(1)(A)
    	
 
    	
9.05
    
	
(a)(1)(B)
    	
 
    	
9.04
    
	
(a)(2)
    	
 
    	
N/A
    
	
(b)
    	
 
    	
9.07
    
	
(c)
    	
 
    	
16.13(d)
    
	
317(a)(1)
    	
 
    	
9.08
    
	
(a)(2)
    	
 
    	
9.09
    
	
(b)
    	
 
    	
2.05
    
	
318(a)
    	
 
    	
16.09
    
	
(b)
    	
 
    	
N/A
    
	
(c)
    	
 
    	
16.09
    


 




N/A means not applicable.

*                 This Cross-Reference Table is not part of the Indenture.
**EXHIBIT 11.1**

 

**EF JOHNSON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ANDSUBSIDIARIES**

 

**COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PERSHARE**

**(inthousands, except share and per share data)**

 
| ** **                                            | ** ** | **Three Months Ended** | ** ** | **Nine Months Ended**  | ** ** |
|-------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------|------------|------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                            | ** ** | **September 30,** | ** ** | **September 30,** | ** ** |
| ** **                                            | ** ** | **2009**               | ** ** | **2008**               | ** ** | **2009** | ** ** | **2008** | ** ** |
| ** **                                            | ** ** | ** **             | ** ** | **(as  restated)**     | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | **(as  restated)** | ** ** |
| Net income (loss)                                     |       | $                      | (1,605     | )                      | $          | 645 |   | $ | (1,735 | ) | $ | (113 | ) |
| Weighted average common  shares – Basic          |       | 26,440,835             |       | 26,121,544             |       | 26,355,828 |   | 26,088,648 |   |
| Net income (loss) per  share – Basic             |       | $                      | (0.06      | )                      | $          | 0.02 |   | $ | (0.07 | ) | $ | — |   |
|                                                  |       |                   |       |                   |       |   |   |   |   |
| **Net  income (loss) per share - Diluted:**           |       |                   |       |                   |       |   |   |   |   |
| Shares used in  computation:                          |       |                   |       |                   |       |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average common  shares – Basic          |       | 26,440,835             |       | 26,121,544             |       | 26,355,828 |   | 26,088,648 |   |
| Dilutive effect of  shares under employee stock plans |       | —                 |       | 11,735                 |       | — |   | — |   |
| Weighted average  restricted stock grants and units   |       | —                 |       | 553,734                |       | — |   | — |   |
| Weighted average common  shares – Diluted        |       | 26,440,835             |       | 26,687,013             |       | 26,355,828 |   | 26,088,648 |   |
| Net income (loss) per  share – Diluted           |       | $                      | (0.06      | )                      | $          | 0.02 |   | $ | (0.07 | ) | $ | — |   |

 

1

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-206-PB

Cleveland Facey

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the January 9, 2007 

trial in the above case, citing the need for additional time to

finalize a plea agreement. The government does not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from January 9, 2007 to March 6, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00206-PB Document 10 Filed 12/18/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The December 20, 2006 final pretrial conference is continued

to February 21, 2007 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

December 18, 2006

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Debra Walsh, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00206-PB Document 10 Filed 12/18/06 Page 2 of 2
10

A.6. Share of Non-real-estate Bank Loans with a Floating Interest Rate Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1991...... 65.1 81.5 69.3 68.8 40.6 50.3 52.0 59.0 64.0 67.8 

1992...... 71.7 78.5 63.5 66.3 47.8 75.3 57.3 59.1 61.2 78.6 

1993...... 76.7 84.6 70.0 70.3 48.2 78.1 60.1 61.0 64.5 83.9 

1994...... 75.1 82.9 74.3 72.3 51.6 75.7 58.6 59.8 70.4 80.2 

1995...... 73.8 83.9 75.9 73.0 53.1 72.2 61.7 63.9 73.6 76.7 

1996...... 63.1 58.1 71.2 67.3 32.9 61.4 60.6 61.5 69.1 62.2 

1997...... 65.8 66.4 73.2 67.8 49.9 64.3 60.1 58.0 68.0 67.0 

1998...... 54.4 55.0 59.4 68.5 46.7 42.0 57.6 54.8 62.7 51.1 

1999...... 60.7 45.6 66.0 68.6 58.2 52.0 52.6 54.6 60.2 63.1 

2000...... 66.9 57.3 60.7 67.0 62.2 76.7 53.4 54.6 61.8 74.5 

2001...... 74.5 72.9 65.6 75.0 61.0 80.5 58.8 60.9 69.4 81.5 

2002...... 75.1 64.6 65.4 75.8 60.9 84.1 67.8 64.5 68.4 81.2 

2000: Q1... 63.0 46.4 69.2 59.4 80.6 70.8 51.8 52.4 53.0 69.7 

 Q2... 68.3 51.0 57.8 69.7 57.6 78.4 53.0 54.7 61.8 78.0 

 Q3... 71.0 60.0 59.5 78.9 38.6 72.9 57.3 57.9 67.8 79.2 

 Q4... 66.5 66.8 56.2 62.8 51.0 81.6 51.6 53.2 65.7 73.1 

2001: Q1... 67.7 64.7 73.7 73.4 50.8 63.9 60.0 60.4 66.4 70.4 

 Q2... 76.1 77.5 56.8 73.8 79.0 85.1 57.3 57.4 69.0 86.2 

 Q3... 76.5 72.5 72.6 75.5 54.9 86.9 58.0 63.5 70.7 86.6 

 Q4... 78.1 74.2 63.6 78.3 38.0 88.5 60.5 63.3 72.2 84.4 

2002: Q1... 72.3 62.1 64.1 69.7 57.9 88.1 64.2 57.5 64.4 79.5 

 Q2... 75.1 56.2 72.9 74.5 52.8 89.1 69.6 67.6 72.9 79.3 

 Q3... 72.2 53.6 57.8 78.2 75.1 67.9 68.5 68.7 68.5 74.8 

 Q4... 81.4 78.1 65.4 81.8 37.9 93.5 67.6 62.8 68.0 92.2 

2003: Q1... 74.7 64.0 79.5 75.4 61.7 86.0 68.2 67.5 63.7 80.8 

 Q2... 69.2 53.9 63.8 67.1 74.0 84.0 66.7 62.8 54.8 79.9 

 Q3... 78.2 74.9 41.0 81.0 78.2 88.8 69.7 64.4 73.6 84.1 

 Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
- 1 - 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND 

EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PIYUSH G. PATEL, DAVID J. KIRKPATRICK, 

ERIC JAEGER, BRUCE D. KAY, ROBERT J. 

GAGALIS, ROBERT G. BARBER, JR., 

LAWRENCE COLLINS, MICHAEL A. 

SKUBISZ, JERRY A. SHANAHAN, 

HOR CHONG (DAVID) BOEY, 

Defendants. 

No. 01:07-00039-SM 

AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES T. LUX IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANT ERIC JAEGER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY

OF STEVEN HENNING

I, James T. Lux, on oath, do depose and state as follows: 

1. I am a senior associate at the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr 

LLP in Boston, Massachusetts. I am an active member in good standing of the bar of the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

2. I represent Defendant Eric Jaeger. I submit this Affidavit in support of Mr. 

Jaeger’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Steven Henning, filed herewith. 

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the 

Expert Report of Steven L. Henning. 

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 264 Filed 11/18/11 Page 1 of 3
 - 2 - 

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the 

transcript of the July 30, 2011 deposition of Steven L. Henning. 

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a document bearing the 

Bates number KPMG 30138. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed 

November 18, 2011 in Boston, Massachusetts. 

/s/ James T. Lux 

James T. Lux 

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 264 Filed 11/18/11 Page 2 of 3
 - 3 - 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I, Jonathan A. Shapiro, hereby certify that the Affidavit of James T. Lux in Support of 

Defendant Eric Jaeger’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Steven Henning filed through the ECF 

system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of 

Electronic Filing and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants 

on November 18, 2011. 

 /s/ Jonathan A. Shapiro_________ 

 Jonathan A. Shapiro 

 Dated: November 18, 2011 

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 264 Filed 11/18/11 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-15-01-SM

Wayne Webber

O R D E R

Defendant Webber’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 22). Trial has been rescheduled for the May 2008

trial period. Defendant Webber shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than March 31, 2008. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall

be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: April 25, 2008 at 3:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: May 6, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00015-SM Document 24 Filed 03/20/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

March 20, 2008

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00015-SM Document 24 Filed 03/20/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In Re: William M. Richmond,

Debtor

__________________________________

New Hampshire Supreme Court

Committee on Professional Conduct,

Appellee

v. Civil No. 06-cv-426-SM

William M. Richmond,

Appellant

O R D E R

Denied. Appellant seeks a stay of this court's order dated

September 27, 2007 (and the judgment entered), pending his appeal

to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. 

This court's order affirmed the bankruptcy court's earlier

determination that the imposition of the costs associated with

appellant's state disbarment proceeding constituted a sanction

that was not dischargeable in bankruptcy. A stay of judgment

pending appeal is necessary only when some action might be taken

on the judgment that would be beyond the power of the appellate

court to undo, or that might moot the appeal in some way. See In

Re Public Service Co. of N.H., 963 F.2d 469, 473 n. 10 (1st Cir.

1992). Here, appellant seeks only a stay of execution on the

Case 1:06-cv-00426-SM Document 25 Filed 12/26/07 Page 1 of 2
2

court's affirmance - he does not seek a stay with respect to any

other matter, and does not suggest any reason to think the

principal issue might be mooted during the pendency of his appeal

by some interim action taken on that judgment. The motion for

stay (document no. 58) is denied, but without prejudice to

appellant's seeking a stay in the Court of Appeals if he believes

it necessary for some reason not articulated here. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

December 26, 2007

cc: Bruce A. Harwood, Esq.

Joseph A. Foster, Esq.

Cheryl C. Deshaies, Esq.

Michael S. Askenaizer, Esq.

Geraldine L. Karonis, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00426-SM Document 25 Filed 12/26/07 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1500 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1500

To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to allow State 
 educational agencies and local educational agencies to establish and 
    implement uniform policies with respect to discipline and order 
 applicable to all children within their jurisdiction to ensure safety 
      and an appropriate educational atmosphere in their schools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

  Mr. Nussle introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to allow State 
 educational agencies and local educational agencies to establish and 
    implement uniform policies with respect to discipline and order 
 applicable to all children within their jurisdiction to ensure safety 
      and an appropriate educational atmosphere in their schools.

    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 ``Freedom to Learn Act''.

SEC. 2. UNIFORM DISCIPLINARY POLICIES UNDER THE INDIVIDUALS WITH 
              DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.

    Section 615(k) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
(20 U.S.C. 1415(k)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraph (10) as paragraph (11); and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
            ``(10) Uniform disciplinary policies.--Notwithstanding any 
        other provision of this Act, each State educational agency or 
        local educational agency may establish and implement uniform 
        policies with respect to discipline and order applicable to all 
        children within its jurisdiction to ensure safety and an 
        appropriate educational atmosphere in its schools.''.
                                 <all>
```
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

          - [Disaster Declaration #11418 and #11419] 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 2. 

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1786-DR), dated 09/02/2008. 

*Incident:*                         Hurricane Gustav.                     

*Incident Period:*                         09/01/2008 and continuing.                     

*Effective Date:*                         09/10/2008.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         11/03/2008.                     

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         06/02/2009.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to:  U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana, dated 09/02/2008 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: 

*Primary Parishes: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):*

Catahoula, Franklin, Grant, La Salle, Saint Helena, Washington. 

*Contiguous Parishes/Counties:*                     (                    *Economic Injury Loans Only*):                

Louisiana: Caldwell, Madison, Richland, Tensas, Winn. 

Mississippi: Marion, Walthall. 

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-22027 Filed 9-19-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P