alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26413]


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

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Notice of Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to 
OMB for Review

SUMMARY: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has 
submitted the following information collection to OMB for review and 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
    Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of 
having their full effect if received within 30 days of this 
notification, Comments should be sent via e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3664594545697718696443425a5352515376595b541853594618515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ffad908c8ca0bed1a0ad8a8b939a9b989abf90929dd19a908fd1989089">[email protected]</span></a> or fax to 202-395-3086. Copies of submission may 
be obtained by calling (202) 712-1365.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    OMB Number: OMB 0412-New.
    Form Number: AID 321-1.
    Title: Mentor Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program--Agreement Application.
    Type of Submission: New information collection.
    Purpose: Entities interested in participating in the U.S. Agency 
for International Developments (USAID) Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] 
Program must apply in writing to the USAID Office of Small and 
Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) by submitting the 
application form. The application will contain the Mentor-
Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program Agreement and will be evaluated for 
approval. Evaluations will consider the nature and extent of technical 
and managerial support as well as any proposed financial assistance in 
the form of equity investment, loans, joint venture, and traditional 
subcontracting support. USAID's current policy on the Mentor-
Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program can be found in the AIDAR 719.273.
    Annual Reporting Burden:
    Respondents: 30.
    Total annual responses: 30.
    Total annual hours requested: 360 hours.

    Dated: October 8, 2010.
Beth Salamanca,
Acting Director, Office of Management Services, Bureau for Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-26413 Filed 10-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LEROY BLACK.

April 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
# Sitemap

## August 16, 2011

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2011
- 08
- August 16, 2011

            - Opportunity’s Heat Shield
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

In connection with this Quarterly
Report of Sterling Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Downey Bridgwater,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                                                
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 6, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ J. Downey Bridgwater                       
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | J. Downey Bridgwater                           
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 32.2
                                                                ------------


                          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 Zoltek Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Kevin Schott, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
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 results of operations of the
                           Company.

Date: February 9, 2006                       By: /s/ Kevin Schott
                                                ------------------------------
                                                     Kevin Schott
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

July 8, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00314-CV

IN RE R. WAYNE JOHNSON, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

County Court at Law No. 2 & Probate Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 162563

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On June 8, 2021, relator R. Wayne Johnson filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52. Relator has been declared a vexatious litigant and is therefore subject 

to the pre-filing order under section 11.101 of the Texas Civil Practice and 

Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 11.101, 11.103.
2

Under section 11.103(a), the clerk of this court may not file an original 

proceeding presented by a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order under 

section 11.101 unless the litigant obtains an order from the local administrative 

judge permitting the filing, or the petition for a writ of mandamus is from a prefiling order entered under section 11.101 designating a person a vexatious litigant.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.103(a) & (d). This is not a petition for a 

writ of mandamus from a pre-filing order entered under section 11.101.

Relator has not responded to our June 9, 2021, letter and has not shown that 

he has obtained an order from the local administrative judge permitting the filing 

of this original proceeding. 

We ORDER the petition for writ of mandamus DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Poissant, and Wilson.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
<CIK>     0000891098
<NAME>     Sterling Bancshares Inc
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          87,633
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             918
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                66,879
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     79,029
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         183,973
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           186,218
<LOANS>                                        927,582
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (8,907)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,396,197
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,239,781
<SHORT-TERM>                                    20,089
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,373
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,890
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           28,750
<PREFERRED>                                     28,927
<COMMON>                                        25,303
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,084
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,396,197
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 20,910
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,578
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   743
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                26,231
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,752
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,030
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           18,201
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      965
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 14,253
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,434
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       6,434
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,253
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.00
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,223
<LOANS-PAST>                                       389
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   269
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 13,318
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 8,278
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    (491)
<RECOVERIES>                                       155
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                8,907
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,031
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          4,876


</TABLE>
#### JOHN P. RENNA, ET AL. v. IVY HILL PARK SECTIONS I-V, INC.

February 6, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered In Colombia

On October 21, 1995, by Executive Order 12978, the President declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the actions of significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia and the extreme level of violence, corruption, and harm such actions cause in the United States and abroad.

                        Because the actions of significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia continue to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States and cause an extreme level of violence, corruption, and harm in the United States and abroad, the national emergency declared on October 21, 1995, and the measures adopted pursuant thereto to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond October 21, 2010.  Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia.  This notice shall be published in the                         *Federal Register*                        and transmitted to the Congress.                    

[FR Doc. 2010-26355

Billing code 3195-W1-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: N.A., A MINOR

PETITION OF: E.A., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 100 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: N.A.A., A MINOR

PETITION OF: E.A., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 101 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of June, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 205 (Monday, October 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26905]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-74,290]


Supermedia LLC, Formerally Known as IDEARC Media LLC, Supermedia 
Information Services LLC, Client Care Group and Publishing Operations 
Group, Including On-Site Leased Workers of Advavtage (TAC), RESPRCCONN, 
TATACONSSV, MODIS, AMDOCS, and Database, Middleton, MA; Notice of 
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated September 23, 2010, the petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding 
workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The 
determination was issued on September 3, 2010 and the Notice of 
Determination was published in the Federal Register on September 21, 
2010 (75 FR 57517). The workers supply customer service in support of 
the subject firm's customers and internal publishing support services. 
Workers are separately identifiable by service supplied.
    The negative determination was based on the findings there were no 
imports of either customer service or publishing support services by 
the subject firm. The investigation also revealed that the subject firm 
did not produce an article or supply a service that was used by a firm 
with TAA-certified workers in the production of an article or supply 
service that was basis for TAA-Certification.
    The request for reconsideration was filed on behalf of a specific 
worker group--workers of the Ad Production-Graphics Division of 
SuperMedia, Middleton, Massachusetts.
    The request for reconsideration alleges that because the workers of 
the Ad Production-Graphics Division are separately identifiable from 
workers in other units of the subject firm, information related to the 
Customer Care Department and other units are not relevant and should 
not be the basis for denying the Ad Production-Graphics Division 
workers' eligibility to apply for TAA. The request asserts that the 
supply of services provided by the Ad Production-Graphics Division 
shifted to India.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of October 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-26905 Filed 10-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### THE STANDARD BLEACHERY AND PRINTING COMPANY, PROSECUTOR, v. THE BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION OF NEW JERSEY, THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMMISSION OF NEW JERSEY AND WALTER P. RANDALL, DEFENDANTS.

Submitted October 2, 1944

Decided January 11, 1945.

Before Justices Case, Bodine and Poktek.

For the prosecutor, *Louis A. Cowley.*

Por the defendants, *Clarence F. McGovern.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

Walter P. Randall made claim for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law. The claim was allowed by a deputy, reversed by the Appeal Tribunal which, in turn, was reversed by the Board of Review. This action the prosecutor seeks to have reversed in this court on *certiorari.*

The pertinent portion of the statute is as follows: “4. An individual, totally or partially unemployed, shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if it appears that * * * (c) He is able to work, and is available for work.” *B. S.*43 :21-4, as amended *Pamph. L.*1941, *ch.*114, *p.*257, § 1.

The question posed is: Was the claimant able and available for work within the purview of the statute in question ?

Randall was 57 3rears of age and on March 18th, 1943, he consulted a physician because of rheumatic heart condition and was finally advised, on July 19th, 1943, to rest. Although he reported to the Unemployment Compensation Commission that he was available for light work, he did not secure emplojment as a timekeeper till September 13th, 1943.

*319There can be very little doubt that from August 3d, 1943, when he filed his initial claim, that he was not able to work. He could not, under any circumstance, do the heavy work which he had been doing before the heart condition developed.

The employer carried with the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company a group accident and health claim policy. Randall made claim thereunder and was allowed sick benefits. That circumstance may not be dispositive of the question of whether Randall was able and available for work. We think, however, that the proofs clearly show that he was not able to work until September 13th, 1943. He stated he was not. So did his physician. His signed statements to that effect neutralized his testimony that he was able to work. The case is barren of proof that he was entitled to the statutory compensation.

The judgment under review will be reversed, but without costs.
Exhibit 99.2


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




        I, Ian K. Whitehead, as Chief Financial Officer of London Pacific Group
Limited, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

        (1) The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2002 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



Date:  November 14, 2002                     By: /s/  Ian K. Whitehead
                                                 -----------------------------
                                                 IAN K. WHITEHEAD
                                                 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
# Sitemap

## February 1999

- Home
- Sitemap
- 1999
- February 1999

            - 05
            - 12
            - 19
            - 26
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

BARBARA R. KING,

Appellant

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR 

FORCE

Agency

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. DA-0752-09-0604-P-1

AMICUS BRIEF OF MSPB WATCH

STATEMENT OF INTEREST

MSPB Watch1 is an accountability organization that works to ensure that the U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board (“MSPB” or “Board”) adheres to its mission of “protect[ing] Federal 

merit systems and the rights of individuals within those systems.” MSPB Watch engages in 

research, outreach, education, and advocacy, relating in particular to whistleblowers’ rights and 

the protection of those rights. While Congress debated the Whistleblower Protection 

Enhancement Act (“WPEA”) in 2012, MSPB Watch advocated for its retroactive application and 

raised the very types of questions articulated by the administrative judge’s (“AJ”) December 14, 

2012 Order. Since the WPEA’s enactment, MSPB Watch has identified at least 90 cases pending 

before the Board that may be affected by the Board’s decision.2 MSPB Watch is thus well 

positioned to address the legal issues raised in the case at bar. 

 

1 MSPB Watch is run by David Pardo, an attorney and federal whistleblower. Its online presence is available at 

www.mspbwatch.net.

2 See http://mspbwatch.net/2013/01/24/gap-reaches-out-to-whistleblower-community-to-protect-rights-six-monthstoo-late/.
2

ARGUMENT

Because Administrative Judge Malouf's order below makes similar, if not the same, 

arguments concerning retroactivity3 as those of Administrative Judge Weiss in Day v. Dep't of 

Homeland Security, Docket No. DC-1221-12-0528-W-1, in the interests of judicial economy, 

this amici respectfully endorses and adopts the argument of the Office of Special Counsel4 in 

Day as effectively stating its own legal argument to the Board. Amici also incorporates by 

reference its own amicus brief5 filed in Day.

Respectfully submitted this 10th day of April, 2013,

______/s/____________

David Pardo

 

3 These duplicative arguments include the lack of “express prescription of retroactivity" in the Whistleblower 

Protection Enhancement Act (“WPEA”), and the consequences thereof; the purported “ambiguous,” “inconclusive,”

or “contradict[ory]” legislative history of the WPEA; and the significance, if any, of the immediate effectiveness of 

the WPEA for employees of the Transportation Security Administration.

4 Available at 

http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=799164&version=802247&application=ACROBAT. 5 Available at 

http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=799192&version=802275&application=ACROBAT.

B6